A VALUELESS CHEQUE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 135, 10 June 1925, Page 9

A VALUELESS CHEQUE.

CHARGE THAT FAILED. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A man named James Trevarthen Thomas was charged in tho Supreme Court with obtaining credit by means of a fraudulent cheque for £1.1. Prisoner was tried for the offence at tho last sitting of the Supreme Court, when the jury disagreed. Mr. H. T. Gillies (Crown Solicitor) said tho facts were that in September last prisoner got in touch with two other men. The three men got more or less drunk in Hamilton, and finally went to Morrinsville, where pri.sioncr engaged a taxi to drive the party to Thames, tendering the driver a cheque for £13. They tried to cash the cheque at Thames, hut were unable to do so, and they got the taxi man to drive them back again to Morrinsville. Early next morning, it. would be shown that prisoner suggested to his companions that they should get out of Morrinsville as quickly as they could, as he had passed a dummy cheque on to the taxi driver.

Counsel read out a long statement by prisoner, in which he denied that he wrote out a cheque, which was signed "Laycock," one of his companions, who gave him to undei stand that the cheque was a genuine one. Arthur Robinson, taxi driver, of Morrinsville, gave evidence iv support of counsel's statement. Sydney Laycock. labourer, of Shelly Beach Road, Auckland, said that he and a man named Earl came to Hamilton, where they met Thomas in the street, who wanted to sell them a razor. They did not purchase the razor, and Thomas then said he would like a drink. Witness bought him one at the Commercial Hotel. They got drunk together. Witness had a cheque book. Mr. Seymour, for the accused, addressing the jury, said it was extremely questionable whether accused was aware that the act of giving the cheque was fraudulent. The defence was that one of the men had made preparations for a similar offence, even going to the lensrth of stealing his father's cheque-book for the purpose. This man, upon whose evidence the case against Thomas mainly rested, had already been convicted of the! same offence arising out of the same ! circumstances. His Honor said all the evidence tended to show that accused played a leading part. ' ; After a brief retirement the juryj returned a verdict of not guilty, and Thomas was discharged. i