The courts A "preposterous’ story

Press, 15 September 1977, Page 7

The courts A "preposterous’ story

A young man who made persistent efforts to cash a stolen cheque for $1562 by opening a Post Office Savings Bank account in the name of the payee — and then tried to withdraw the whole amount — was sentenced to nine months periodic detention by Mr) Justice Casey in the; Supreme Court yesterdav. Raymond Paul Harpur. ) aged 24, who was employed as a barman at the time, was found guilty by a jury' on the charge of attempted' fraud. Mr M. J, Glue appeared! for Harpur. and Mr N. W.| Williamson for the Crown. Evidence was given that en insurance company I

cheque for $1562 was posted to a Mr Brown at an address in Hay Street, Linwood, but he had left and never received the cheque. Harpur took the cheque to the High Street Post Office on February 11 where he opened a savings bank account in the name of i Brown. Subsequently he .made attempts to withdraw jail the funds from the ! account by going to the I High Street and New Brighton savings bank branches, and to the Chief Post Office. However because of Post ; Office regulations he 'succeeded in withdrawing (only $200; he had not Sallowed the required number of days to elapse for the ( cheque to be cleared. i When seen by a detective

1 on March 23, Harpur denied i stealing or receiving the - cheque, but alleged it had i been given to him by a man named Brown, whom he had ijmet in the bar where he was H working. He said it was in ; i payment for Harpur’s car, : I which “Brown” was buying t'for $lOOO. He said he intended to return the balance.; Mr Williamson described) : Harpur’s explanation as pro-1 : posterous. It was an - example of the often-re- , peated excuse for possession of stolen property — the unt known man in the hotel bar. i Harpur did not know ; Brown's address or where he t could contact him, nor could r the police find him. y Making submissions about) Mr Glue said that : periodic detention would be)

Tan appropriate penalty. Har- ■ pur, who had trouble w'ith I alcohol, realised that a bar was not a suitable place of I employment for him and had ■ now r changed his occupation to truck driving. Liquor had contributed to all his offences. His Honour said that Haripur had made persistent I efforts to cash the cheque, I but had been thwarted by I Post Office regulations and ■ staff. “1 was not at all impressed by the clumsy ex- . planation which you tried to put up to the jury, and * which was so rightly rel jected. You have a problem) iwith alcohol, but are making! :|an effort. I trust we won’t! t see you back in Court ! I again,” his Honour said. 1