FORGED CHEQUES

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 118, 12 February 1926, Page 10

FORGED CHEQUES

AUCKLAND BUSINESS FIRMS DEFRAUDED A MAN OF MANY NAMES By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, February 11, Just how some of the largest business firms in Auckland were defrauded to the tunc of £139 by means of valueless cheques, and how a man forged cheques totalling £1396 drawn on the , Bank of Australasia at Rotorua, was ' explained in the Magistrate’s Court this morning during the preliminary trial of Henry Lloyd (61 j’ears of age), who had the following aliases tacked on to that of Lloyd on the charge-sheet:— Alfred Apps, James Francis, James King,'Francis E. B. Elliott, Rae James, Beattie, and Curtiss. Accused, who was born in England, recently arrived from Australia. He was nqt represented b.y counsel. Hie charges preferred against accused were that he had forged cheques totalling £1396, and had obtained by means of false pretences and by valueless cheques £29 from J. Brown and Son, £2O from Smith and Caugheys, similar sums from John Court Ltd., Milne and Choyce, Davenport’s, and Tonson-Garlick, also £l9 from William Hayes. In all of the cases the evidence given was on the same lines.

This showed that accused went into various business establishments on January 8 or 9 and stated he wished to vurchase some furniture for Mr. Llovd. of Lake House, Rotorua. He would then ask for quotations to be sent to “H. Lloyd, Lake House, Rotorua.” Then several days later the firnis would receive letters purporting to come from the licensee of the hotel, stating that a “relative” would call in and purchase the furniture. Just after these letters had been received accused would call again and state that “Mr. Llovd” wished him to purchase the furniture. In each case a cheque £2O in excess of the purchase price for the furniture would be handed to the salesman. with the explanation that Mr. Llovd cither owed him £2O or that he desired accused to pay another account with the £2O. In all cases except that of William Hayes accused received either a cheque or payment in cash for £2O. When the business firms passed along the cheques to the bank in the usual way. They were all returned marked “not sufficient funds,” and "not H. A. Lloyd’s account.” The cheques had printed on them with a rubber stamp the words, “Lake House Hotel. Rotorua, H. A. Lloyd, Proprietor.”

The real Henry Lloyd, of Lake House Hotel, Rotorua, stated that on January 11 accused, who booked accommodation through Cook’s Tourist Agency, came to his house and stayed there until January 14. Accused requested witness to hand him any letters that came addressed to H. Lloyd relating to the purchase of furniture. This witness did. Witness had an account with the Bank of Australasia, Rotorua, and

' vavs signed his cheques. “H. A. Lloyd.” The cheques examined were not issued by .witness. The signature "H. Lloyd” on them was a forgery in each case. The rubber stamp on the cheques was not used at witness’s hotel. Witness added that he never at any time gai'e accused authority to order or purchase furniture on liis behalf.

Albert Hedley Trewavis, employed in the Bank of Australasia, Rotorua, stated that on January 11 accused called and opened an account. He gave the name of “Henry Lloyd” and was issued with a 'dieque book (produced), which contained 30 forms. On. January 14 he withdrew.£ll 155., stating that he wished the withdrawal in order to go to Hamilton.- This left only ss. to accused’s credit in the bank. Acting-Detective Power said that as a result of complaints received he made inquiries and went to the Auckland railway station at 7 p.m. on January 18, the day when accused received cheques from various business firms. At 7.30 p.m. he saw accused come on the platform and get on board the 7.45 p.m. express for Wellington. When witness accosted him accused stated that his name was Elliott, but later admitted that he was sometimes known as Lloyd. Witness then accompanied accused to the detective office, where he was questioned by Chief- Detective Cummins and witness. .When witness told accused that he had “taken down” a number of Auckland business firms bv means of valueless cheques, he admitted he had no authority to purchase furniture for H. A, Lloyd, of Lake House. Rotorua. Accused also admitted calling on various business people, presenting cheques for payment and having received money. When searched accused had the sum of £153 6s. in his possession, a cheque book on the English. Scottish and Australian Bank at Echucha. and another on the Bank of Adelaide, while he also had a rubber stamp containing the words “Lake House. Rotorua, H. A. Lloyd, Proprietor,” and two large boxes of cards with the following inscriptions on 5 them: “R. Sherwood, Customhouse, Perth.” and “H. Lloyd, Solicitor. Notary Public, Dannevirke.” Acdused was known bv several names, including that of “Mr. Apps.” Witness had never known him as “H. Lloyd” be fore. Accused asked the Magistrate whether he held that a prima facie case for forgcrv had been made out against him, Mr. T. W. Povnton: Yes, of course, Llovd. Accused: Oh. well, I plead guilty then. Accordingly accused was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. The Magistrate ordered that the money found on him should be distributed pro rata to the firms who had been victimised bv accused. Fortunately for the furnishing firms, accused was arrested before the furniture ordered bv him had been forwarded.