AN IMPUDENT FRAUD

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 418, 29 January 1909, Page 5

AN IMPUDENT FRAUD

■ •.•■ ■- — .;,' ■ V". . ' . : ; .. -v .-.''■;■ . HESS GOES TO GAOL : REMARKABLE STORY TO INVESTORS. MISAPPROPRIATED FI?NDS; "\ for Tswonirn—i-uess association—corirsta'aT.) : ' ' .'■ London, January 27. 'Henry Hess, for years',editor of the finauoial .paper the '.' Critic," and proprietor of a ! speculative agenoy called the •■"Critic." Agenoy,■ was convicted at the' Old Bailey"on a : charge.of publishing, as a director'of a public: company,..a, falso statement witli intent; to deceive.. Acoused' was also con-, rioted of converting to his 6wnuso. : £1428, tho proceeds of a cheque belonging to the company (the Common Weal ..Consolidated, Limited). The falso statement was to the effect: that?£lo,ooo belonging to the com-' pany.was.in.the bank, and auotlier,£ls,ooo in the hands of an. unnamed firm. - On each of ; four separate oharges Hess was sentenced t'o twelve months' imprisonment. The sentences will' run concurrently.'',:: Im--prisonment will -be in the second division (which is a grade easier than hard: labour)..■-, .The jury .recommended the' prisoner to' leniency, in view of his previous unblemished character. ■]'.:, ..■''■■'..- . .' . •'.■. ■:■'. ■..■.-.-> ■'■'■' ::Vv^ ':[ theunnamld firm. ■ .s-', .■, .■ . Aeoordmg'to; the; opening, speech of-the proseoutor;(ilr. Muir),. Hess was entrusted'by the pubho'with considerable, sums, which he paid into his own banking account. In 1902 it was stated- that the Common Weal Consolidated, Ltd.; had made a loss of .£10,000.' That snm, which the defendant had already appropriated, was. all, the; company had left, ; and the deferidant';was,in.an awkward fix, , but- he , made the astounding: proposition that he should be permitted to'-pay ; 'i6lo,ooo to. a firm whose name was'to be. kept secret. ■ Astounding as was the proposal, a. resolution was passed that he was to dp'as he proposed. l The ;£IO,OOO supposed to he.in .existence was. to .bo looked ..nn-.'-iri the name of a■ firm known only' to, the:defendant./ TJltimately the .affairs; of .the 'company: came before the Court, and in his preliminary examination tho. defendant admitted having used the ; jfiIO.OOO himself, but .said that he had freplacad it by money of his: own. Asked where he obtained tho money,: he said, "Froma Mr. Louis Joel.": , He 6aid that that : gentleman, invested .£SOOO for him: in'a South African mining company, ''■out::of : which: he. had made ,a profit of, JEt3,eOO: of which' sumYMr.. Joel had remitted' The '■ statement, said. Mr. iMuny :*aspurely fictitious, vln the course' of: the pro-, ceedinps Hess disclosed the.nanm of. the eeoret firm who were alleged to have had ilio ; J310,000, but this -statement; was, untrue, and if would be..proved that he had committed perjury.. "■:■'■'