“A FOOLISH ACTION”

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 5, 1 October 1929, Page 2

“A FOOLISH ACTION”

ACCUSED ADMITS ERROR FICTITIOUS LETTER Dominion Special ServiceDunedin, September 30. A charge against Donald Hutcheson of fraudulently stating that he had posted a packet containing money, knowing that he had not done so, was dismissed in tbe Magistrate’s Court this morning. Evidence was given by two postal clerks at Balclutha, who stated that when accused eglled at the office there on August 20 he complained that a registered letter which he had posted had not been received. Alan Alexander Noble, postal clerk at Dunedin, said that on August 24 he interviewed the accused, who told him that he had registered a letter to his wife on August 14, and his wife had not received it. He said the letter contained bank notes to tbe value of 30s. On August 31 witness saw accused again, and he still contended that he had posted the letter and repeated Ills previous statement. He told witness that when he called at the Balclutha Post Office on August 20 the clerk said he remembered selling accused the envelope. Accused made a statement, which he signed, and in which he admitted he had not posted the letter on August 14, but he thought he had done so, and was very sorry that he said he had done so. The oflice records showed that accused’s wife had received several registered letters, If satisfactory evidence of the posting of letters was produced the Department would pay compensation to the extent of £2 for a lost registered letter. Mr. Hanlon, who appeared for accused, submitted that the case must be dismissed, as no element of fraud had been disclosed. Fraudulently meant dishonestly, and the question really was whether accused had dishonestly made that statement knowing it to be false. Counsel submitted that accused did not make the Statement knowing it to be false, because he honestly believed he had posted the letter, Mr. Hanlon commended the action of the police in the matter.. They had been particularly fair, and it was quite obvious that when accused made the statement that he had posted the letter bo thought he had done so, but he was sorry. The onus was on the prosecution to prove that he had made the statement dishonestly, but he had not done S °The Magistrate said it was a foolish action on accused’s part to make a statement that he had posted the letter without foundation. He did not think he would be justified in holding that a prrma facie case had been established. The charge would be dismissed.