Tattooist’s cheque frauds

Press, 26 May 1979, Page 4

Tattooist’s cheque frauds

After a hearing of a day, • and a half, in which 2L wit- ! nesses were called for the prosecution, a tattooist, aged 131, was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday ion 12 charges of false pre-] Itence and one of attempted: (false pretence. ; The offences all involved the issue of cheques from • two stolen cheque books. • The defendant. John Ed-] ward Mann (Mr D. I. Jones); , was remanded in custody to! June 5 for sentence on all charges, by Mr J. S. BisIphan, S.M, J He had pleaded not guilty ;to the offences, which in- • volved the issue of 12 valueless cheques in Christchurch shops and a hotel for the ; purchase of clothing, liquor, i and a cigarette lighter to a : | total value of $1096 and the (attempted issue of a cheque ■ at a shop for clothing worth • - $l6O. , The offences were com-' • mitted between February 9 and 24. 1 Sergeant A. C. Jones pros- • ecuted for the police. > Most of the witnesses i ] were shop proprietors or (assistants, who gave evi-

dence of the defendant, often in company with a woman, making purchases and paying for them with cheques. In several transactions the woman paid the cheque. j Jennifer Sue Small, a uniiversity student, and Roseimary Scullion, a bank officer, gave evidence of I having their cheque books | stolen in February, Miss ! Small's from her flat and (Miss Scullion's from a I parked car. j Detective-Sergeant K. A. (McLeod gave evidence of searching the defendant’s shop in Oxford Terrace and j finding in a cupboard a travielling bag containing articles jof clothing. When questioned about the alleged issue of valueless cheques the defendant told witness that he had never written or cashed any

i cheques. The defendant said he might have been seen in shops when people were buying clothes but he had never paid for the clothing. The defendant had said he was fortunate in that people had bought for him some . jeans and a jersey. He said also that some clothing had been left in his shop. Cross-examined by Mr Jones, the witness said a woman had been convicted I in the Magistrate’s Court : recently in respect of 21 charges relating to the issue ! of cheques from Miss Scullion's cheque book. Mr Jones said that the defendant did not. intend to - defraud anybody by issuing or presenting cheques. I “It was other people who ■ presented the cheques, not ■ the defendant, and others

made purchases for him. payment for which he believed in good faith would be met," Mr Jones said. The defendant in evidence said that in each case it was a male companion, or a | woman, who had bought the; goods in the shops. In the case of the liquor; purchase from a hotel he didl not present. the cheque, i There were four people in the car. three went into the bottle store, and one made! the purchase he said Asked by counsel how his handwriting, with the signa-! ture. “S. Smail'’ was on the cheque, the defendant said he must have “pretty standard handwriting.” In final submissions. Mr, Jones said the defendant I 'presented none of the’ jcheques from Miss Scullion’s (cheque book. It was the girl

companion who had presented them and she had pleaded guilty to the offences. Also, in all but two of the incidents involving Miss Small's cheques the defendant's male companion had presented them for payment.

Giving his decision, the Magistrate said it would be stretching gullibility to the extreme to accept the defendant's explanation. He found beyond doubt that the defendant was present when the cheques were passed and that he wrote at least one of them, and that he received the bulk of the goods involved in the purchases.