Housewife for trial

Press, 1 April 1977, Page 4

Housewife for trial

PA Wellington Certain businessmen had been more than willing to advance large sums of money at extortionate rates of interest without any proper inquiry into the nature of their security, the Magistrate’s Court at Wellington was told yesterday.. Dr B. D. Inglis, Q.C., made this submission on behalf of Susan Mary Pilmer, aged 26, a housewife, when the taking of depositions ended yesterday afternoon. The defendant pleaded not guilty to 15 charges of false pretence, said by the police to involve about ”$250,000. The charges allege that Pilmer, with intent to defraud, caused persons to pay cheques of $2OOO to $40,000 by falsely representing that the proceeds would be used to purchase properties, including blocks of flats and shops, paintings, steel, and antique silver. Mr N. W. Kilgour and Mr J. A. Young, J.P.s, found there was a prima facie case on each of the charges and committed the defendant for

trial in the Supreme Court. The defendant was allowed bail and ordered to report three times a week to the Masterton police.

The prosecution called 46 witnesses during the fourday hearing. The defence was reserved, apart from a brief submission.

Dr Inglis said that certain businessmen had clearly been more than willing to advance large sums of money at extortionate interest without proper inquiry into the nature of their security. In at least two cases there was an unauthorised use of company funds for the “socalled loans.” It was also of interest that in the present time of high taxation, certain of the complainants had ready access to large sums of cash which could be used at short notice for the high-risk financial ventures the Court had heard about.

There was also the question of the extent to which the defendant was used by experienced businessmen for purposes, not disclosed in their evidence.

Earlier, Dr Inglis had objected to evidence of the defendant’s replies to questions she was asked by a Wellington fraud squad detective during a three-hour interview at the Masterton police station in January. Dr Inglis submitted that the evidence was inadmissible.

Cross-examined by Dr Inglis, Detecvtie P. G. McAuslin, said that the questions were prepared by him and Detective Sergeant Doone, a qualified lawyer. Detective McAuslin said that the defendant’s husband, who called at the police station during the interview, had not been discouraged from staying. He did not recall Mr Pilmer asking if he might be with his wife. Detective McAuslin said that the defendant had said she did not want her lawyer to be present. Dr InglisrYou are aware, I take it, that only a matter of weeks before Mrs Pilmer had left Porirua Hospital?— Yes.

Were you aware that during the latter part of her stay there she was in the security wing?—Yes, I was.