OVER THE CLIFF.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 103, 5 May 1926, Page 16

OVER THE CLIFF.

MOTOR DROPS 200 FEET.

TWO MEN STAND THEIR TRIAL. CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY. BOTH POUND JNOT GUILTY. A novel, but extremely unfortunate means of obtaining insurance on a j motor car in order to pay liabilities was , adopted by a man recently, but it was < found that when he had pushed the motor car. over a cliff that the insurance , policy had lapsed two days prior to the "accident." He was apprehended and pleaded guilty, but three men who were r concerned in the matter were also arrested. William Ewald Heyber and William | John Forshaw yesterday stood their trial on charges of wilful damage to a motor car and -with, conspiring to defraud an insurance company at Maungaturoto. John Wilson Keynolds, who was also implicated in the matter was discharged as the grand jury returned a no bill . in his case. Mr. V. R. Meredith, prosecuted, and Mr. Luxford appeared for Heyber, and Mr. Hall Skelton for-Forshaw. , Outlining the case for the Crown, Mr. Meredith stated that the two accused ■were charged firstly, with, mischief, and the allegation in that respect was that ; the car was pushed over a cliff in the i Waipu Gorge and destroyed.. Secondly, i there was an allegation that the accused attempted to defraud an insurance company. A man named Lough, for whom Heyber worked, bought the car under the hire-purchase system and owed a ; good deal of money on it. He found himself in a position of being unable to pay the money that was due. The car ■was insured with the Ocean Accident ; Assurance Corporation for £300. Lough Was under the impression that the policy • with the company expired on March 31, •but in reality it lapsed on March 28. Lough, decided to push,the car over the • gorge and then collect the insurance money. The actual incidents, to which the present two were charged were that they were a party to the destruction of the motor car. From the evidence it "Would appear that Lough went out to the gorge with Forshaw to look for a crank that was supposed to have been ' lost. Lough, jacked up the car on the ! edge of the gorge and somehow it went over and became a total wreck, "200 ft below. Heyber had made arrangements ■with Lough to go for him in another motor car and drive him back to his home. In a statement to the police-Forshaw said Lough had told him that he in- ■ tended to push, the car' over the gorge. The excuse for being on that part of the ' road was that they were to look for a • crank, and that while they -were doing ■ that there was supposed to be a punc- ■'■ ture. Lough, pushed the car over the : gorge, and told him (Forshaw) that he -was going to collect the insurance money. Heyber stated that lie -was told .to drive out and pick up Lough and Forshaw. ' I Alister Bevin, of Whangarei, said Lough got the car from Ms firm on terms. He paid a third of the money and the balance was to be paid in twelve months. He owed £230 plus insurance and interest on the car. Witness was notified by Lough the day following the "accident," and was told that the insurance company would pay out. It was then found that the policy had expired two 'days before.' The.car dropped 200 ft and cost £40 to recover. It was not worth that when brought back to the garage. Further evidence ' was submitted for the Crown, in the course of which it was : stated that both the accused had been . straightforward in their behaviour . throughout the matter. Mr. , Hall Skelton said Forshaw had not conspired with Lough, and stood to . gain nothing out of the deal. He had acted in the capacity of an employee under directions from his employer. Oh the suggestion of his Honor, Mr. Meredith withdrew the charge of conspiracy leaving that of mischief standing. , Mr. Hall Skelton contended that without their own admissions there was practically no evidence against either of the accused. A country youth of 20 years, Forshaw had tried in vain to persuade Lough not to carry out the scheme. He had gone to the gorge because Lough had told him to dp so, but ; he took no actual part in the pushing of the car over the cliff. In Heyber's. defence, Mr. Luxford suggested that at the most he could only be charged with being an accessory after the fact, but according to NewZealand law that could not be held unless he had done something to enable the perpetrator of-the main offence to escape his.responsibilities. . Heyber had merely met Lough and Forshaw according to a prearranged plan. His Honor directed the jury that there "was no evidence by which Heyber could ■be found guilty, and as far as Forshaw -was concerned, quoted an English, decision, that to be an aider'and an abettor in any offence it was necessary to •be more than a passive spectator as Forehaw had been. Th&pury, without -leaving the' box, .returned a verdict of not guilty in respect of both accused, who were discharged. • , - ■ „, , ■