SUPREME COURT Man Guilty Of Theft By Failure To Account

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27733, 10 August 1955, Page 9

SUPREME COURT Man Guilty Of Theft By Failure To Account

Ha]f-an-hour after it had retired a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday returned with a verdict of guilty against Ronald Stuart Alexander, aged 31. a car salesman, on a charge that on May 23, having received £285 from Emma Honora McLaughlin on terms requiring him to account for or pay the money to George Howison Jones, he fraudulently omitted to account for or pay £lO5 to Jones, thereby committing theft. Mr .Justice Adams remanded Alexander in custody for sentence. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) appeared for the Crown, and Mr B. McClelland represented Alexander, who pleaded not guilty to the charge. About the end of April George Jones was anxious to sell his car and asked his brother, Albert Jones, to sell it for him at not less than £285 ,in cash, said Mr Brown, addressing the jury. Early in May Albert Jones met the accused and told him about the car. Albert Jones had heard that the accused was a car dealer, so he asked him to sell the car on terms whereby George Jones would get £285 and the accused could keep anything above that for commission. Eventually the accused took the car away on May 5 and did' not return it, said Mr Brown. He told the Joneses that a mechanic was fixing it and he would return it in a day or two. He did not return the car. The accused led the Joneses to believe he had a purchaser for the car at £315 or one was in the offing, and it was a question of the prospective buyer getting finance. On May 23 or 24 the accused went to see George Jones and asked for the registration papers, and for the change of ownership form to be signed as they had to be produced to a finance corporation. The accused told George Jones that the best price he could get for the car was £270, of which £lBO would be in cash. After some talk, George Jones agreed to let the car go for £270. 1.0. U. Given On May 25, said Mr Brown, the accused gave George Jones £lBO of the. money and said he had received a cheque for £2OO. but the buyer had wanted £2O back to keep him noing as he had come from the West Coast, but he had promissory notes for the rest. The balance was not paid and George Jones pressed the accused for the money. On June 4 or 5 the accused gave some sort of 1.0. U. to George Jones for the balance. But it turned out that on May 23 a Mrs McLaughlin had bought the car and had paid £285 to the accused. The Crown said that this was the money the accused was bound to nay to George Jones, said Mr Brown. The car was transferred direct from George Jones to McLaughlin. At a later date, the accused wrote on a slio of paper that £9O was still owing. The Crown said that the accused paid over the

sum of £lBO and pocketed the rest. The police were informed and the accused was interviewed. He said: “I bought the car from Mr Jones. I tried, to sell it for him but I could not get near the price he wanted.” “That statement was false for the car was never sold by Jones to the accused,” said Mr Brown. Evidence for the Crown was given by George Howison Jones, a truck driver; Albert William Jones, a dealer; Emma Honora McLaughlin, married woman: Francis Daniel McLaughlin, an engine driver; William Cyril Gilbert, supervisor of the motor registration branch in Christchurch; and Frederick George Pine, a detectivesergeant. No evidence was called for the defence. Counsel for Defence A number of the facts were not in dispute, said Mr McClelland addressing the jury. There was no doubt that the car was sold by Alexander to McLaughlin for £285 and that £lBO was paid to Jones. But the charge against Alexander was theftland one important word in the charge was “fraudulently.” meaning without colour of right. The jury had. to be satisfied that Alexander took the money without any belief that he was entitled to it, before they could convict him. Counsel said he could not dispute that Alexander owed Jones £9O and that Jones was entitled to that amount. But there was a civil process for the recovery of a debt. It was not a criminal offence to owe money. It was only if the money had been fraudulently retained, that an offence had been committed. The original agreement that Alexander was to sell the car for £285 was cancelled on May 23 and Alexander then believed he could buy the car for £270. It was what Alexander thought at the time that was important, said Mr McClelland. If he genuinely thought he had bought the car for £270 there was no offence. He then arranged to sell the car to the McLaughlin’s for £285. as he was free to do. He did not pay the £270 to Jones as he should have done but he recorded on paper the following: “I promise to pay £9O. the balance owing, when available.” He thought he owed Jones £9O and it was significant that when he was interviewed by the detectivesergeant he immediately said he had bought the car from Jones and owed him £9O on it. Counsel said that clearly the position was that there was a straight out debt of £9O and Jones had a remedy whereby he could recover it. The question for the jury to consider was whether Alexander bplieved he had bought the car for £270 and was free to. sell it. for £285. If the jury were satisfied that that was the position they must acouit Alexander. His Honour summed up. The jury retired at 4.45 p.m. and ‘ returned at 5.15 p.m. with their verdict of guilty.