FALSE PRETENCES CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 173, 18 April 1935, Page 6

FALSE PRETENCES CHARGE

Sum of £2OO Involved

MAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

The insertion of an advertisement in a newspaper asking for a partner in business with capital to invest led to the appearance of Maurice William Baker, aged 36, a clerk, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. lie was charged with obtaining from James Aubrey Moyle a cheque for £lOO on June 10, 1033, and a cheque for £lOO/2/6 on June 30, 1933, on false pretences. Accused, who was represented by Mr. W. P. Pringle, pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial by Mr. A. LongmOre. J.P., and Mr. H. P. Mourant. J.P. Briefly, the evidence would show that Moyle had for some considerable time taken a personal interest in a young man, Simons, said DetectiveSergeant L. Revell. Accused was an advertising specialist in Wellington, who inserted an advertisement saying that he wanted an employee who could invest a small amount of capital in his business. Interviews took place and Baker made certain representations, after which Moyle advanced him money. Later on Baker did not have the money. He had said that it had been spent. Inquiries made later would show that his representations were false.

The pretences on which Baker was said to have obtained the money were that he represented that lie was not indebted more than the sum of £5, excluding an unsecured debt of £2B in connection with his car, that he owned a car, that he had an advertising contract with Lane, Walker, Rudkin and Co., and that he intended to purchase a packet of shares. Evidence concerning the transfer ot a car from Baker to the City Finance Company was given by George James M. Eales, an officer in the department of the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

Answered Advertisement

James Arthur Moyle, a retired solicitor, said that in June of 1933 he was seeking suitable employment for a friend of his, James H. Simons. . On June 15 he saw an advertisement in a newspaper. He answered this, and in reply to his letter Baker asked him to call. Baker said he was an advertise'ment designer and an advertising agent.. He said that he made about £720 per annum, and that he was so busy designing advertisements and organising advertising campaigns that he required an assistant to interview possible clients. He would instruct him in the business, being prepared to pay him £3 weekly, with a share in the net profits. He wanted this assistant to deposit £2OO as a fidelity guarantee, which would be paid back. The business was capable of great development, and he had no ready cash himself to speak of. He would have to prepare printing blocks and things of that kind and go to considerable expense before he got the cash for contracts. He represented that he had the advertising rights for Woolworths throughout New Zealand and for the Charles Haines Agency. Witness said that Simons was a former clerk of his, and he wished to find him employment. Simons was present at a later interview with Baker. Witness questioned Baker about his financial position, and said he would definitely not consider depositing £2OO on security. Baker had said that he owned his silver, furniture and a motorcar worth £3OO which was his unencumbered property. Later he said that he owed £2B in respect of the car, which was unsecured. He offered the car as security on the loan. Witness asked him specifically if he owed anything else, and he said nothing at all, except trifling amounts. A “flver” would cover the lot.

Witness then told accused that he would consider advancing money up to an aggregate of £2OO as wh'en required, but only when approved by Simons and himself. Baker said that he would accept this offer, and that he wanted £lOO immediately, accounting for £25 for various matters. Witness was nqt told at the time the reason for wanting the other £75. Baker said that Simons could have full control of all books and could watch the matter from the inside. Later in June witness made inquiries about Baker’s financial position, the report stating that he had been known to dishonour cheques and advising caution. Transaction Finalised. Eventually the transaction was finalised with the offer of the car as security, accused saying he wanted £75 for a Lane, Walker and Rudkin bathing costume advertising contract. Accused was very earnest and Moyle believed the representations made to him. Another £lOO with w’hich to buy Woolworths shares was asked for toward the end of June. Witness thought this a good i£°a. Becoming dissatisfied with the state of Baker’s books witness eventually took a mortgage over the car. Later he found that the City Finance Company had some claim on it. In March last year he brought an action against accused and obtained judgment. Baker was driven to bankruptcy. Witness underwent extensive crossexamination from Mr. Pringle, as did Janies Heriot Simons, whose evidence largely consisted in a corroboration of Moyle’s. The dealings of the firm of Lane, Walker and Rudkin with Baker were described by Henry Lee. assistant manager of the firm, who said that accused had been given a bathing suit advertising contract in 1932. The artistic tvork had been quite satisfactory, but not the financial part. Baker had been given no further contracts. Evidence in connection with the car was given by Simon Nausbaum, manager of the City Finance Company. Accused’s statement was read by Detective Henry E. Campion. In it Baker said that he tried to raise £2OO to pay off his creditors in Christchurch. It was possible that Moyle had misunderstood some of his remarks.