BOGUS PIANO SALES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 821, 21 May 1910, Page 13

BOGUS PIANO SALES.

FALKINER GUILTY. POSTAL CLERKS ASSIST THE FRAUDS UNWITTINGLY. LETTERS INTERCEPTED. The trial of Edward John FaLkiner, telegraph operator, upon a series of charges of theft and forgery in connection ivith transactions carried on by him as agent for the London and Berlin Piano Company of Auckland, was Concluded in the Supreme Court on Thursday, bofore his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a jury of twelve. Mr. M. Myers (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the Crown case, and Mr. A. Dunn appeared for the accused. On Wednesday, when the trial commonced, several persons gave particulars of transactions in pianos made by the accused, and pawnbrokers stated that tho accused had pledged pianos. It was also Stated in evidence that the accused was bankrupt. William Henry Webbo, manager of the London and Berlin Piano Company, stated that his estimate of the defalcations allegedly- made by the accused was between £1100 and £1200.

When the caso opened on Thursday the cross-examination of John William Eeade, of Lower Hutt, was concluded, and Albert Richards, an inspector, and Richard Pilling, inspector of the Mutual Life Association, gave evidence regarding transactions in musical instruments.

A telegraph messenger, GeorgoWentford Paminent, stated that some time back tho accusod called him into his shop to witness his signature. Tho accused signed a document and directed witness where to sign, "G. W. Pamtnent." Tho document was produced, and shown to bo an agreement for the purchase of a piano, tho accused's signature appearing as that'of tho witness to tho agreement, and Pamment's signature in the position marked for that of the contracting party. The "agreement" had boon filled in to make it appear that "Gerard Wilson Pammont, contractor," was ontering into an agreement for the purchase of a piano. "Dead" Letters Recovered. David John Lockhead, a clerk in tho G,P,0.. stnted that in January, 1901). when ho was employed in tlio Dead Letter Office, the accused told him that he represented the London and Berlin Piano Company, of Auckland, who were posting letters to addresses in Wellington. The addresscos of letters which roached tlio Dead Letter Office, the accusod explained, had changed their places of residence. Ho said that by letting him have, tho letters u great deal of troublo would ho saved. In tho months of January and August, 1909, witness handed the accused several undelivered letters, one of which was addressed, "Mrs. Robertson, Karori." Five was the largest number of letters handed to tho accused at any one time. The accused handed witness an envelope similar to those being sent from Auckland, and several names likely to appear on the expected letters. Another postal clerk, William Cotter, stated that in August last tho accusec came to the Dead Letter OfGco and made a similar request. He oxplaincd that it would save dolay in collecting the money, because some of tho people had shifted, and be, knowing their new addresses, would bo able to deliver them. Witness did not hand any "doad" letters to the accusod. Horace Fildes, a olort in tho unclaimed letter department, referred to' another request by tho accused, who said v that'the company in Auckland wore sending out accounts, and ho could deliver them mors expeditioiisly Jian tho letter-carriors. Witness showed the accused several letters, and the accused supplied now addresses to which tho letters wcro to be delivered. Tho letters were not handed to tho accused, but were taken out by tho lettercarriers and delivered as " redirected. This went on for about eighteen months, about seventeen letters being dealt, With. Counsel Called to Order. Mr. Dunn, having opened the 'case for the defence, the accused went into the witness-box. Falkiner stated that Jio had been continuously in tho Post and Telegraph Department for 35 years, and, after four or five years' service, he would have been entitled to receive a retiring allowance of £800, or £150 per annum. In the dealings with the London and Berlin Piano Company, for which firm he became the Wellington agent on tho death of his uncle five years ago, ho considered that he was responsible for all" pianos imd organs received. Tho understanding was that, in the case of bogus agreements, he' (tho accused) had to pay.

Mr. Duaa: It practically amounted to this: that you had the advantage of the time-payment system in buying tho pianos?— Accused: "That Ls so." And you did payP— "In every case." As a matter of fact, some of these agreements are "dummy" contracts?— "Yes."

And Mr. Webbo knew that?—"He did."

Did ho on anj- occasion ask you how many agreements wero bogus, and how many were, genuine?—"He ,' didn't bother.

The accused further stated that the business never paid, and ho waa losing £500 a year. When he was pressed, he had the right to sell tho pianos received from Webbo, to make up his loss, so long as io repaid Webbe. Warm words ensued between his Honour and Mr. Dunn a3 to the latter's method of examination. His Honour ruled several questions out on tho gronnd of irrelevancy, and there was disoussion as to whether the pianos wero bought outright by the accused from the company (as Mr. Dunn had opened), or whether tho accused had authority (as lie now stated in evidence) to sell Webbo'a pianos. When Mr. Duun . persisted in putting questions, in a different form, which iiis Honour had .disallowed, his Honour remarked that "no proper counsel" would pursue that course. After further examination by Mr. Dunn, his Honour asked the witness: Did you buy the pianos straight out from Webbo? —Accused: "I understood that I was responsible for them."

His Honour: That is not what I am asking. What I ask you is, "Did you purchase them?"— Accused: "It is hard to say. It is difficult to know what you moan."

His Honour: I know what I mean. Did they become your pianos?— Accused: "I considered they did." Why, then, if they became your pianos, wore these payments to be in Wobbc's name?—"To facilitate business." How could that facilitato business? Mr. Dunn: I understand— .His Honour (sternly): Will you bo quiet? Accused (answering the judgo's question) : The whole thing is on the running of tho business and the loss I in rule. His Honour: Tt does not hingo on tlwt at all. I aslc you, "How does it facilitato businer.s, if you put the pianos in another person's name?"— ; Accused: "If tho business was closed up—" His Honour: That is your answor, "If the business was closed up"? Very well. Mr. Diinii: You bonn fide believed that yon woro responsible for tho money?--Accused: "Yes; I must havo been." Mr. Dunn: Do you say, Mr. Falkiner, Hint you always considered you wero ■the purchaser?

Hia Honour: Well, Sir, Dunn, that ifl no way to put questions: "Yon ahraye did this and did that." You put waraa in hie mouth which I consider are injuring hia own position. Mr. Dana (to tho witness): Did you purchase the pianos ?—Accused: "I wae responsible for them. I was responsible to tho Auckland house for everything I did." His Honour (to tho witness): You aro a business man. Did you buy the pianos?— Accused: "Unfortunately, I am not a business man; otherwise, I would not have been hero."

Mr. Dunn: If you had been a business man, you would not have had anything to do with them. You have, been a telegraphist for 35 years, and have, had no previous business experience P — Accused: "No." Right to Pawn Pianos, In further examination, accused' stated that the existence of bogus accounts had been known to Webbo all along. Accused denied that he had admitted to- Reado that he stole any pianos. A piano sold to Mrs. Lansdowne was seized by him (the accused) when payments got. into arrear, and. pawned to Fruhauf. Ho considered ho had a right to act in this niauner, and the money wont into the business. His Honour: Into his own pocket. Mr. Dunn: No, into the business of tho London and Berlin Piano Company. His Honour: Then he was an agent. Accused declared that ho had a private conversation with Webbe, with whom ho made arrangemonts about the sending of bogus agreements. Hia Honour: llr. Webbe consented to a forgery? Do you mean to Bay that? Here are forgeries—untrue documents. , . The bogus agreement referred to was signed "Julia Hardy," Maranui. Accused admitted that "Maranui" was an invention of his own, and that he got Miss Hardy to sign the dooument by asking her to witness his signature. He admitted to his Honour that tho document was a forgery. In reply to Mr. Dunn, the accused Eaid that ho had been bona fide in his intentions in all transactions with the Piano Company. In cross-examination, Mr. Myers asked: ,Is tho evidence given by tho postal officials true?— Accused: "It is." Mr. Myers: Why did you want to prevent theso letters being sent back to Auckland from the Dead Letter Officop—Accused: "Mr. Wobbe might not want the Auckland auditor to see tho letters." His Honour: The auditor might not .have fieen the letters. Mr. Myers: Did Mr. Webbe ask you to do it? —Accused: "No." Well, why did you do it?—"To keep tho business going." I put it to you: Is it not becauso you did not want Mr. Webbe to know the class of business you were doing?—• "No." Don't you see what you are doing? You are charging Mr. Webbo with perjury, and with taking part in theso frauds. Accused: They are not frauds. Mr. Myers: I say they are. Accused In Difficulties, Later on, the acoused answered questions hesitatingly, his Honour remarking that he had taken twenty minutes to answer, one question. "Look here, Mr. Falltincr," said his Honour, "if you' can't answer questions better than that, it would bo better that you did not answor at all."

As the accused wont back to the dock, Mr. Dunn said: "That is the case, your Honour." His Honour: Then you don't call the accountant? Jtr. Dunn: No, your Honour. His Honour: Very well. His Honour: Deceiving Fellow-offlcers. In summing up, after counsel had addressed the jury, his Honour asked: What was tho relationship between the company in Auckland and tho acoused ? Hither he was tho purchaser of thq pianos, or ho was the company's agent. Ho said that he was the purchaser; Wnbbo said that be was the company's agent. The documents showed tliat tho company remained the owner of the pianos, and this was proved by the bailments and by tho insurance.' The jury had se«n document after document, which showed Unit Wobbe was the owner of. the pianos, and that the accused was only the ngi'iit. \Yipo out Iho evidence of Wobbo and KcxJn, continued his Honour, and nil bis own admissions, tho accused was the ngciit. When he disposed of tho pianos for cash, ho did not send all tho cash to Webbe. When he disposed of tho goods on terms, ho did not, in some cases, send a true bailment and cash to Webbe. What, then, was he guilty of? The law was perfectly clear. If the jury came to the conclusion, that tho pianos wero Webbe's proporty, that tho accused sold them, that ho pocketed tho money, and that he did not account to Webbo for them, then ho had committed theft.

His Honour then traversed the evidence regarding the various pianos, placing issues before the jury concerning all the counts of the- indictment. Why, asked his Honour, had tho aconsed gone to the post office and deceived his fellow-officera, getting them to deliver to him Webbe's letters —' making them commit a crime—that he might open the letters, and send them back to Auckland with incorrect endorsements? Was it not to induce the AUclfland people to believe that the people had received the letters, and' that the transactions were correct?

The jury retired at 5.5 o'clock, returning at 6.15, with a verdict of. "Guilty" upon all tho counts of theft and uttering forged documents, knowing them to be forgeries. On two remaining counts, charging him with forging documents, tho jury's verdict was "Not Guilty." Sentence was deferred until Monday, ulid, at 6.20 o'clock, the court adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning.