FALSE PRETENCES

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 266, 5 August 1932, Page 13

FALSE PRETENCES

Light-Globes Purchase VERDICT OF GUILTY Man Remanded for Sentence A verdict of guilty on aU counts was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday in the case of Isaiah Joseph Hills, electrician, aged 31, who stood his trial on three charges of obtaining by false pretences electric lamps from the British General Electric Co., Ltd., and one charge of obtaining from the same company credit by fraud to the extent of £149/10/-. The case commenced on Wednesday and did not finish until yesterday afternoon. Mr. Justice Reed was on the bench. The Crown alleged that by falsely representing that his house was his own, and that he had secured a specific contract from an oil company for the supply of electric light globes, Hills had obtained globes from the company and had sold them again at less than he paid. The defence was that Hills did not make any false representations, and that he had made a mistake as to the purchase price of the lamps. False Representations Denied.

Acting-Detective W. R. Fell read to the Court a statement made by Hills, ,in which he denied making false representations to the British General Electric Company that the house in which he was living in Lloyd Street was his own, and that he had certain contracts with oil companies. He admitted owing £149/19/- to the company, nearly all the amount representing lamps purchased.

In opening the case for the defence, counsel for accused said the crucial point was whether Hills made false representations to the accountant of British General Electric Company and obtained goods to fulfil bogus contracts. Counsel said that Hills had never had anything to do with figures prior to this transaction, and the present confusion was caused by his lack of experience, and not by any dishonest motive.

Accused, giving evidence, detailed * scheme to maintain electrical equipment in various concerns. A company was formed, and an account was opened with the British General Electric Co. The scheme was submitted to various firms in the city, and one large drapery concern had approved of a cont' n ' , t for maintenance for £144/4/- a year, but had not signed it, al cue t..<. vi March accused said he signed a contract with the British General Electric Co, for the supply of £3OO worth of lamps a year. Confused About Prices.

Later, accused told the accountant of the company that he was taking over the work of the maintenance company himself. The accountant did not asu him if he owned a house, nor that he was taking orders from oil companies to pay for the lamps. When accused sold lamps to I. Hart, Ltd., he was under the impression that he was making a profit of id a lamp. Accused explained how he had been confused about the prices at which the lamps had been supplied. On estimating what the lamps would cost him, be deducted 36 per cent, discount from 1/6, instead of 2/3. This brought the price down to below 1/-, enabling him to make a small profit by selling at 12/- a dozen. After a retirement of about an hour and a half the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. In announcing the jury’s verdict, the foreman said: “We, the jury, recommend that the mercy of the Court be extended to accused as we believe the offences were committed in the stress of circumstances.” In remanding prisoner for sentence, his Honour said that he would take that into consideration.