"LOST" LUGGAGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 246, 17 October 1929, Page 10

"LOST" LUGGAGE.

CONSPIRACY CHARGES.

ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD.

TWO BROTHERS PLEAD GUILTY

CLEVER SCHEME GOES WRONG.

A story of a clever scheme on the part of two brothers to defraud an insurance company was told at the Police Court to-day, when Arthur Moir Mitchell (22), a farm hand, and Cecil William Mitchell (21), a salesman, were each charged with conspiring to defraud the Insurance Company of Australia of £180. Cecil William Mitchell was further charged with attempting to obtain £180 from the same company by falsely representing that four bags and their contents, covered by an insurance policy of £180, had been lost. ■

Mr. L. P. Leary appeared for both accused.

Cyril Joseph White, assistant manager of the Insurance Office of Australia, said the Christchurch otiice, on July 27 last, received a proposal to insure four suitcases and contents for £180. The proposal was for three months, ending October 27. This was accepted and a policy drawn up. On September 30 witness received a signed declaration from C. W. Maekin that the property had been lost.

Detective V. J. Nalder said he interviewed Cecil William Mitchell on October 10, when he said he had used the name of Machin when he insured Ins, baggage for £180 for the purpose oi defrauding , the company. Accused said he had claimed and drawn £14 from Lloyd's for damage to a motor car at Christchurch last year, and that he haa drawn £4 10/ for personal injury. Mitchell also said he had insured baggage with Bennie S. Cohen and Son, Ltd., insurance brokers at Wellington, using the name of Cunningham on that occasion. He said he had used this name when in Australia. Witness and Detective Packman, on October 10, went to Taupiri and located Arthur Moir Mitchell, who was interviewed. When asked about a motor cycle on which he claimed £27 10/ when it was destroyed by fire, this accused said his brother insured it for him. Accused said that in August last he took a bach with another man at Dunedin. Three days after they went into the bach a fire occurred, and the other man's insured luggage was destroyed. Accused gave witness every assistance. Both accused said this was the first dishonest claim they had ever made. Detective Packman gave corroborative evidence.

"An Accidental Fire."

In a statement made to Detective Nalder, Cecil William Mitchell admitted that while i living in Christchurch he owned a bach at New Brighton. His furniture and effects were insured for J9O with another company. Later there was a fire in the bach which partly destroyed his furniture and effects. These he valued at £60, and the insurance company paid him that amount. That fire was quite accidental. The insurance company paid him very easily after making a few inquiries. Shortly afterwards he decided to go to Australia and for the purpose of insuring his luggage called at the Christchureh office of the Insurance Office of Australia on July 27. The clerk asked' him where the baggage was. Accused invited the clerk to go to the hotel and see the luggage, but the clerk said he did not want to see it. Accused said he did not know what the value of each bag was. '■■'■■' ■ . * "As they did not wish to see my baggage I then conceived the idea of over insuring it," he said.

The four bags were worth about £40, but he told the clerk they were worth £180. A policy for this sum was then issued to him. .Accused left Christchurch on September 21 and went with his brother to Auckland. He admitted telling his brother thaf'lns had insured his luggage for £180 and that he intended to lose it and claim the £180 on arrival at Auckland. He suggested to his brother that he should take the luggage checks and pick' up the luggage at Auckland. To do this accused was to pay his brother's expenses from Christehurch to Sydney. He was to get this money after accused had drawn the insurance money. His brother knew he was defrauding the insurance company and accused had to persuade his brother to agree to the proposals. Both travelled on the Limited express from Wellington in the same carriage, but did not associate with each other. Accused left the train at Frankton and gave his brother the four luggage checks. It was agreed that Arthur Moir Mitchell should get possession of the bags at Auckland and take them to Taupiri with him, where ho had a job to go to. Accused came to Auckland the next day and informed the company that he had lost his checks. He then made a claim on the insurance company "for £180. Accused signed a declaration prepared by a solicitor that he had lost his luggage. This was a false declaration. He

attended at the insurance company ? s office on three occasions and also advised the police of his Joss. He expected to draw the £180 and telegraph his brother and then catch the boat for Sydney. Although he insured four bags, accused said he only owned two of them. The truth was that he had not lost any bags or property. What he had done was to conspire with his brother to defraud the insurance company.

Arthur Moir Mitchell also made a statement in which he admitted going to Taupiri for the purpose of concealing the luggage. . °

Both accused, pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge, and were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. The charge against Cecil William Mitchell was dismissed, the police offering no evidence.