ELEMENT OF DOUBT

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 286, 29 August 1931, Page 9

ELEMENT OF DOUBT

False Pretences Charge DISHONOURED CHEQUES Prospect of Funds Although “not altogether happy” about the explanations given by accused. Mr. E. Page, S.M., decided in the Police Court yesterday that an element of doubt existed, and that the charge against V ivian Claude Parker (Mr. Sievwnght). and Valentine Charles Blake (Mr. Arndt) of obtaining money by means of a valueless cheque had not been established. The cheque was one for £4, which had been cashed by a hotelkeeper. Blake was charged further with obtaining £o at the same place by means of another cheque. On this charge he was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The hearing of the two charges had several unusual features. • Sub-Inspector Ward, who conducted the case for the police, said that Parker and Blake had known each other for some time, and that Parker had given Blake on one occasion a blank cheque form. On July 8 they both went out to the Taita Hotel, and Blake cashed the cheque, which he had \ filled in for £5. Parker had told the police that he .had received none of the money, and did not know the cheque had been cashed. This cheque had been returned ; to the hotelkeeper, as the bank had no account under the name of the drawer. On July 11 Parker and Blake again visited the hotel, and a cheque for £4 was cashed. This was filled in by Parker himself, and was also dishonoured. Blake’s explanation to the hotelkeeper with regard to the first cheque had been that it should have been drawn on the Bank of New Zealand instead of the National Bank of New Zealand. With regard to the second cheque. Parker explained to the police that although he knew when he gave the cheque to Blake on the Saturday afternoon that he had not enough money in the bank to cash it, he anticipated getting some accounts tmid which would enable the cheque to be cashed when presented on Monday. Blake had told him anyway that he would be responsible for the cheque. Blake cashed the second cheque and gave Parker'3o/-. In an interview with the police Blake denied having any knowledge that the cheque was not a K °This n oiitline of the facts given by the sub-inspector was followed by evidence from the hotelkeeper, which ended the police case. ■ , Blake then gave evidence, and in the course of it admitted responsibility, for the first cheque, £5, which had been given to him as a blank one by Parker. With regard to-fhe second cheque his attitude was rather different. He gave a dramatic denial that Parker had ever given him £4 to go out and square off the cheque with the hotelkeeper. Parker in evidence said that he had certainly given Blake £4 to pay over in return for the cheque after it had been dishonoured. Sub-Inspector Ward spent some time cross-examining Parker. He asked him at one stage what the payments were that he had been expecting when he made out the cheque for £4. Parker was hesitant, saying that they were just accounts owing to him. Sub-Inspector Ward pressed him for details, and Parker said that he would like to consllt his solicitor, before' an-' swering the question. The magistrate then asked' him his occupation. Parker was still' hesitant. . . Mr. Sevwright explained to the magistrate that Parker did not wish to answer in case the’ answer incriminated him. Sub-Inspector Ward said ' that the polici understood. Parker was a bookmaker.

The magistrate said that the cheque for £4 had been given on a Saturday, and that Parker at that time had known there were no adequate funds at .the bank, although he thought there would be wtyen it was preserfted. False pretence was a false representation of an existing fact', the magistrate said. Although he was not altogether happy about the explanations given by accused he thought there was some element of doubt as to whether the'cheque had been a false pretence. The onus was on the Crown to establish the charge positively, and in the present case he thought the joint charge should be dismissed. On the other charge, however, Blake would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.