ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28822, 17 February 1959, Page 16

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES

Man Acquitted By Jury

A Supreme Court jury acquitted Ronald Martin Box (Mr G. S. Brockett) yesterday on a charge Of obtaining money and goods to the value of £6 by false pretences. He was discharged by Mr Justice Adams. ‘ . It was alleged that Box had obtained potatoes to the value of £1 Is 6d and £4 18s 6d in change from Leith Douglas McGunn by falsely representing that a cheque for! £6, signed “R. Martin,” was a good and valid one. On October Id accused had called ? at McGunn’s shop, where he was known as R. Martin, and collected a bag of potatoes he had ordered previously, said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. M. Roper). He paid for the potatoes with a cheque for £6 drawn on the Commercial Bank of Australia. The word "Oamaru” printed on the cheque had been crossed out and replaced 'by “Christchurch.” After McGunn had banked it the cheque was returned marked no account. An account had been opened at the Oamaru branch of the Commercial Bank by an R. Martin on July 17 with a deposit of £l9 10s, Mr Roper said. Cheques, from this book totalling £96 were subsequently dishonoured. Box admitted to the. police, that he had no account at the Christchurch branch of the bank and sdid he thought the cheque would bounce. Mr Brockett said that in July, Box was working in the Oamaru district for a photographic firm and had opened an account there. Soon after he left this firm and ramp to Christchurch to work for another firm. While in Oamaru he had advanced £7O to a man, and it was arranged that this money, plus £l4 interest, was to be repaid into his current account at Oamaru. Although it was true that Box had drawn cheques for £97 which had been dishonoured, the total amount he expected to have in the account was more than enough to meet the cheques, said counsel. Accused had taken the name of Martin because he had previously been in trouble. There was nothing sinister about this and he was widely known as Martin. Box had not intended to defraud McGunn of the £6, Mr Brockett said. His Honour told the Jury that the question was whether the accused meant to defraud McGunn or whether he Mad grounds for believing that the cheque would be met when presented at the bank.