ACCUSED OF THEFT

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 206, 30 August 1921, Page 4

ACCUSED OF THEFT

AMD FAUSE PRETENCES. MAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. A private prosecution was heard by Mr. J. \V. Poynton, S.M., this morning, when Henry Patrick 'Moor (Mr. Tompkins) was accused by his two partners, Patrick O'Shea and Stanley Percival Olynes, of obtaining £.500 from O'Shea by false pretences:' and with the theft of several sums of money lodged with him as fidelity guarantees. Mr. I. •/• Goldstine appeared for the prosecution. The circumstances were that Moor started a wood yard in partnership with dynes, and save O'Shea a third share for £500. The assets of tire firm were stated to be £1000 be-fore O'Shea came in, :>ut this statement was alleged to be an exaggeration. It was also alleged that Moor had failed either to account for or to return -sums paid by employees a>s fidelity bonds. THE EVIDENCE. I'atrick O'Sliea, the principal witness, said >he had come to meet Moor through an advertisement, and Moor had offered him a third partnership in a wood and coal yard for £500. Witness saw the balance-sheet showing assete £987. and Moor told him the business was earning 100 i>er cent, jrross and about 33 per cent. net. Arrangements were made for ■witness to pay €500 for one-third share in the business, whk-h Moor valued at tIOOO before witness came in. The partnership dee<l was signed only by Glynes. Mr. 1. Meltzer was appointed auditor to the partnership and visited the yaTd. The auditor asked to see the balance-sheet, which was" produced ami found to *be unsatisfactory. Witness tried for some time to get another, and eventually vvae given one purporting to be ;i copy of tlie auditor's balance-sheet. There was a mistake in the addition, and several items had been over-esti-mated, while encumbrances were later found on items that were described as unencumbered. Since Moor's arrest witness had investigated the position of the business, and found that it had been grossly misrepresented to him, and that the capital of the firm wa/ considerably less than £ 1000. Had he known these tilings at the time witness would not liave put his i'oOO in the business. It was now practically insolvent and witness had decided to wind it up and, with Glynes, try to make up the deficiency. Stanley Percival Glyues, a partner with Moot and O'.Shea, said (Moor approached him about starting a wood and coal yard, saying- it would cost a/bout £300. Witness paid the money and the business was commenced, witneee paying another £50 later on. O\?hea was later admitted to partnership. tVKhea and witness ' found out afterwards that the business was practically insolvent, and they -were now trying to make up the deficiency. John Stewart, a cook, said accused had told him he must give a bond ot .£SO as a guarantee of good faith, and would get £4 10/ a week, plus 2 per cent, on new .business. His £50 had not yet been returned. Corroborative evidence was given by several witnesses. Herbert Whifcworti. said he had entered the firm as collector and traveller, and had paid £50 as a fidelity bond. This had not been repaid. Arthur Henry Braith-waite said he had been engaged ac canvasser and yardman on wages £4 10/ and 2J per cent, comHe had paid Moor £50 as a fidelity bond, and had not yet received it 'back. George William Law, engaged as a bookkeeper, gave £50 as a guarantee oi good fait'li and only received £10 back. Accused pleaded not guilty, and reserved hie derfence. Hβ was committed for trial.