FALSE PRETENCES.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 205, 28 August 1909, Page 5

FALSE PRETENCES.

HE IMPERSONATED HIS BROTHER-IX-LAW. COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE. At the Police Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr E. C. Cuten, S.M., a young man named William James Courtney was charged on three counts with having obtained goods of the total value of £11 7/6. He was furthpr charged that, between the sth and 21st August, he broke and entered the dwelling of Walter Cossar and stole therefrom goods to the value of £24.— Detective Hollis conducted the prosecution. Accused was not represented by counsel. Detective Hollis intimated that he would proceed with the. three charges of false pretences, but be asked for a remand on the breaking and entering charge until Wednesday next. The remand was granted. John Lugton, salesman in the employ of Messrs. Macky, Logan, Caldwell and Co., gave evidence that on thp 10th inst. a telephone message was received as follows: "A. E. GifTord is speaking. I am sending a Mr. Courtney up. Please supply him with what goods he requires." Accused arrived shortly afterwards, saying that he Wai Mr. Courtney, brother-in-law of Mr. Gilford. He selected two overcoats. The invoice was forwarded to Mr. GifTord, who ignored tho claim, and said he did not give the accused any authority to obtain such goods. John Howie, salesman in the employ of Messrs. Arch. Clark and Sons, Limited, stated that on the 16th inst. he re-eeived a telephone message which purported to come from A. E. GifTord. The message was as follows: "GifTord is speaking. 1 am sending up a young fellow named Courtney for shirts, tier,, and boots. Let him have them, and charge to my account." Accused came into the. warehouse shortly afterwards and purchased the goods mentioned in the charge. Mr. Gifford denied having given the accused any authority to purchase on his account. Charles Montrose Gray, salesman, in the employ of the D.5.0., stated that the accused come into the shop, and, representing that he was A. E. Gifford, purchased goods of the value of £2 18/6. Alfred Ernest Gifford said that the accused was his brother-in-law. He said that he had no knowledge of the telephone messages received as having come from him, nor had he given accused aiithority to obtain the goods mentioned on his account. Detective Hollis stated that he arrested the accused on the 18fh iust., and charged him with having obtained two overcoats by false pretences. He replied: "Did Gifford go back-on mc?" He said also that lie had pawned one of the coats, and that he had left some of the things at the Coffee Palace. Accused pleaded "guilty," and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.