Decision today on false pretence claims

Press, 17 April 1980, Page 4

Decision today on false pretence claims

A witness said in evidence in the District Court yesterday that he had believed John Perkovic, was a rich man. He had stayed with die witness after being released from prison and had shown him a bank book with a deposit of $2 million.

Perkovic, aged 50, an unemployed commercial artist (Mr K. J. Jones) faced, jointly with Hugh Walter Perston, aged 23, a painter (Mr R. J. McMurtrie) four charges of false pretence involving the alleged issue of valueless cheques totalling $6366. The charges allegedly involved the issue of a cheque for $4995 to obtain a car from Mecca Motors, Christchurch, on December 26; a cheque for $6OO to obtain credit from the Clarendon Hotel- on December 24, a cheque for $72. for airline tickets with Air New Zealand on December 23; and a cheque for $699 to obtain clothing from Munn’s Ltd, on December 21.

The cheques were all alleg-. edly signed H. W. Perston. Both defendants denied the charges. The hearing, which continued for two days and a half, was completed yesterday with evidence of a witness called on behalf of Perston, and with defence submissions by Mr Jones, Judge Pain remanded Perkovic in .custody and Persfon on bail to today for his

decision on me cnarges. Sergeant J. Chadderton prosecuted. The final witness, whose name was suppressed, gave evidence of Perkovic’s saying he was from Australia and was. setting up a postcard business in Christchurch, and inviting the witness to work for him. Perkovic had about 100 business cards printed with the witness’s name “so he could charge me all the expenses.” . Perkovic used to make telephone calls to Australia all the .time and the witness later received accounts for about $5OO for these calls. To Mr Jones the witness

said Perkovic offered him a free 'house and $3OO a week, Mr Jones called no evidence on Perkovic’s behalf, but submitted that in relation to the cheque for $4995 this charge must fail on a matter of law. He said a blank cheque presented as a good and valid order was logically a cheque worth nothing and the charge could not be reasonably sustained. He said the police had to prove in all four charges that at the time the cheques were presented that he knew there were insufficient funds in the bank to cover the amounts.

He traversed the other three charges and said the two defendants had been jointly charged and on the face of it Perston was an ac« complice with Perkovic.

Perston’s evidence was the most damning against Perkcn vic, and Perston had benefited from the form that the trial had taken in that he had been able to implicate Perkovic and call evidence to support the implications he asked the Court to draw.

He said Perston’s story was preposterous and unbelievable and the Court should not rely on it in order to con, vict Perkovic.

There must be a doubf about whether Perkovic knew there were sufficient funds or not, and that the cheques, when presented, would be dishonoured.