‘Cake mixer, recipe nook used in cosmetics venture

Press, 27 March 1981, Page 6

‘Cake mixer, recipe nook used in cosmetics venture

Witnesses, who worked for an Auckland man charged with defrauding; seven persons in relation to! a cosmetics venture, gavel evidence in the District.' Court in Christchurch i yesterday that the defendant! used an egg beater and cake; mixer and recipe book toi mix preparations in the! small laboratory in a shopj in a Christchurch arcade,! from which he operated. | The evidence was given' on the second day of the; hearing of seven charges! against the defendant, aged! 40, of false pretence ini which he is alleged to have' defrauded the seven persons! of a total of $B2OO. He is alleged to have obtained $2500 from a Rotorua man by false representation , in regard to the setting up of retail cutlets for cosmet-

ics in Rotorua, and $lOOO each from five other persons, and $7OO from a sixth, regarding representations made to them in Auckland and Christchurch. Witnesses were still giving evidence last evening to complete the two-day hear-. Ing. T went y-four witnesses were called. The defendant, who was granted interim suppression of his name, had elected trial by jury on the charges. He is represented by Dr R. E. Harrison, of Auckland.

1, Sergeant M. P. Caldwell ;; Messrs C. A. Pilgrim and i |D. F. Prestney were on the J Bench. Three further witnesses t; gave evidence yesterday of :! responding to advertisetiments, two in Christchurch ii newspapers and one in an; it Auckland newspaper, jn Feb-; jruary last year offering, for;

la deposit of $lOOO, training; |as salespersons for six! Imonths. Each subsequently paid! Islooo to the defendant. They were to be paid $6O ia week during a training! ! period, for restocking retail;' (Cutlets in areas designated to them. After a trial period they could withdraw if not satisfied and their $lOOO deposits would be repaid. These witnesses were Malvine Carlyle McFarlane, a

housewife and music teacher, of Christchurch, Carolyn Lois Henderson, a.housewife, of Rangiora, and Soi Tee Lee, a university student, of Auckland. Mrs McFarlane said in evidence that at an interview the defendant told her he was the only perfumier in the Southern Hemisphere. When she asked him about Helena Rubinstein and Elizabeth Arden he said that he supplied materials to these. All three witnesses testified that after they paid their $lOOO and received a

li contract they did not hear 'from the defendant again. li They received no' training, ;|no cosmetics to distribute, land did not receive their > money back in spite of efj forts to contact the defend-

- ant seeking repayment. 1 Detective-Sergeant D. C. '! Lucas, of Auckland, gave ’( evidence, of seeing the! '(defendant last July about ii complaints made by investors in the cosmetics business. The defendant [declined to discuss the matI ter without a solicitor J After discussions with a solicitor a list of questions

■ was suumuiea ror me defendant to answer. The defendant answered in I the questionnaire that his L firm did not have a factory ito produce the cosmetics, j but that the existing fac- j ilities in the shop (in a i Christchurch arcade) were adequate. I, He said he did not intend ( to cause a loss to the in- 1 vestors. f

! Cross-examined, DetectiveSergeant Lucas said the defendant referred to cost structures. Asked if this was) to demonstrate that he or! his company could sustain! the $6O a week payments to! those who held contracts! with the company, he said the main point he recalled was that the defendant expected sales would generate a large income.

He did not recall specifically the defendant saying this would be sufficient to pay the $6O a week. Fay Marion Isilt, a parttime shop assistant, said she began work in December, 1979,'f0r the defendant, working in a cosmetics sliop in an arcade. She said the defendant used a recipe book and a cake mixer for his cosmetics preparations. He had no other qualifications that she knew of. She knew of no plans to organise any training or any efforts to produce stock other than the samples shown to investors. The witness said the : hop was not doing well, and dishonoured cheques were being regularly returned to the shop.

The witness left the shop in March, 1980. She had not received payment for more than two weeks employment and had still not received payment or heard from the defendant. Other witnesses gave evidence of the defendant’s busi-| ncss, from its shop in an

jarcade in Christchurch, inicurring debts of about [slB,ooo which had still not been paid for supplies or services. These included office furniture, newspaper advertising, electricity, telephone rental and toll calls, and chemicals. Detective Sergeant C. A. MacLeod gave evidence of interviewing the defendant. Asked what efforts he had made to set up shop outlets, the defendant had referred to the creation of labels and

preparation of samples. Asked whether, at the time of receiving investors’ money he thought there was any chance of the business surviving, the defendant said there was, as it only cost 30c a bottle to make the cosmetics.

He told the detective he had sold the shop with the intention of realising enough to pay the investor's. Asked why he ran up debts when he had not paid debts previously incurred, the defendant stated that he had expectations that they would be paid in the normal course of business.

Wendy Proctor, a receptionist, said she had considerable experience in cosmetics and was employed by the defendant as a consultant at the cosmetics shop in early December, 1979, soon after the defendant opened it. There was very little stock at the time.

The defendant mainlyworked in the laboratory which was very small and big enough only for three persons.

She later saw him make up the preparations towards the end. They did not make any impression on her. She had seen paraffin oil. eucalyptus wax, and cochineal food colouring used. She had not known these to be used in making perfumes.

Miss Proctor said a large sized commercial venture could most definitely not be operated from the small laboratory attached to the shop. She saw samples being made by' the defendant within minutes of the persons coming in for interviews. She had no knowledge of a proposed factory in Christchurch. The defendant could not have had the products available for distribution in three weeks for distribution by investors.

Miss Proctor said she closed the shop on March 20, last year, because of the unsatisfactory' state of affairs. The defendant was in Auckland. He still owed her about $490 in wages.