JEALOUSY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 117, 19 May 1910, Page 7

JEALOUSY.

« RUSSIA AND GERMANY, INFLUENCE IN PERSIA. By Telegraph.— Presi Anociation.-- CopyrlK'.tn (Received May 19, 9.10 a.m.) ST. PETERSBURG, 16fh Ah'y. Russian newspapein are indignant v uh Germany for attempting to extend !■ r political and economic influence in IV.'sia, and thus creating unsettled conditions in tho latter country. On the 4th of last month, the St. Petersburg correspondent ,of The . Times remarked- "The irresponsible conclava which rules the Mejliss and the Ministers may decide, out of mere bravado, and without the slightest concern for Persia's welfare, to grant, to German financiers a concession for a railway from Teheran to Khanikin. Obviously, no sucli railway could be constructed for many years." Ultimately it involves tha Jinking of Teheran and Bagdad, and if it were under German control, Russia would thereby suffer strategically as well as commercially. But Persia would forthwith become an arena of international rivalry from which she has been preserved by the Anglo-Russian Agreement. The -organs of public opinion liero have long been aware of Germany's desire tot undermine tho agreement, and es> press themselves frankly about tho latest move in Teheran. The unanimous verdict is that it is a repetition of the tactics employed in dealing with ' the Morocco question. The Russian Government cannot afford to allow railways of great strategic importance in Northern Persia to fall into the hands of a possible foe. The Teheran Government must realise that fact before" it is too late." On the same date the Cologne Gazette denied the reports that either 'Germany or a representative of the Deutsche Bank had made any financial proposals to th© Persian Government. Two days later, it was rumoured that the German and Austro-Hungarian Consuls at Moscow had been commissioned 1 to visit Astrakhan and the Caspian with' a view to developing the trade relations of their countries with Persia. A PIANO AGENT. THE CHARGES AGAINST FALKINER. ' ALLEGED DEFALCATIONS, £1000. The trial of Edward John Falkmei) on twelve charge? of theft of pianos and five of forgery was continued in the Supremo Court, to-day, before his Honour the Chief Justice. Mr. Myers conducted the prosecution, and Mr., Dunn defended the accused. 1 After The Post went to press yester^ day more jvidence was given as to tho alleged bogus transactions. It was given in evidence that in one instance the accused had obtained £90 for three pianos, £20 for another, that he had pawned a piano for £15. Other evidence exactly the same as that given in tho Magistrate's Court was also tendered. Detective Lewis said that the accused, when arrested, stated that he had property worth £10,000. He denied having spent any of Webbe's money, and remarked that Webbe would have had a more difficult task in recovering soma of the piaaios had ifc not been for his (accused's) statement to Reade. Tha accused also volunteered the statement that it was a mean trick on R-eade's part to give the statement he (the accused) had made in evidence. He added that at the time he did not think he would be prosecuted. John William Reade, retired importer, now residing at Lower Hutt, gave evidence as to a conversation he had with the accused. Witaess explained th.vt h& had an office in the same building as the accused. Falkinor said lie had stolen pianos, and that the amount of the misappropriations totalled £1000. Accused pleaded with witness to go and tell Webbe what he had done, and to endeavour to persuade Webbe not to have the accused arrested. Accused also askedf for the loan of £35. He said he had issued cheques, and that there was no money in tlie bank to meet them. Later Webbe came into the office, the position was explained to him and the accounts were gone into, and the accused called! out ''Bogus" or "Genuine," as the case might be. There were about thirty admittedly bogus accounts. A telegraph messenger named G. W. Patnment stated that the signature on the document produced was his. (This document was a bailment of ,a piano made out by Falkincv, and purported to be made out in respect of a piano sold on the instalment system to "G. W. Pamment, contractor, Wellington.") Witness said he had signed the document at the foot at the request of accused, who said he wanted his signature witnessed. Witness knew nothing about the contents of the- document. D. J Lockhead, a clerk in the "'dead letter" branch of the Post Office, said he knew the accused. Falkiner came up to the office one day and said he was representing his uncle's firm. He stated that certain letters would be coming txom Auckland addressed to purchasers of pianos, but as the pen-ons named had let their houses or changed their place of residence it would save trouble to hand the letters to him, and he would deliver them. This was in January of last year. Witness did as requested. In the ordinary couTse, had witness not given the accused the letters, they would have been returned to Auckland through the dead letter office. In August accused again got letters in the same way. Two other clerks in the "dead letter" office stated that as far back as 1908 requests for lpttws, made in a similar way to that explained by the last witness, had been complied with. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Dunn said, in opening the case for the defence, that he would put Falkiiwr in the box, and show that the accused was the owner of the pianos, and that he was entirely responsible for paymtnts on them. It was, counsel said, ■a question of Webbe's word against Faluiner's. Edward John Falkiner, the accused, stated on oath that he had been 35 years in the Telegraph Department. In four or live years he would have been entitled to a retiring allowance of £tioo. Witness said his uncle had insured pianos when he was acting as agent. His Honour : How many did you insure ? Accused r I would prefer to answer that later on. Continuing, under examination by Mr. Dunn, accused said his uncle had insured all the pianos out on hire in his own name. Witness had made out bogus or dummy agreements to assist the Auckland business. In these cases he wae responsible. He had paid for pianos himself in about twelve cases. Witness spent £150 in fitting up the shop. The business never paid. The loss was about £500. Hia Honour : Do you mean to suggest that if accused lost money on the shop he had the right to sell Mr. Webbe's pianos to meet it. Accused.: I could do e&

His Honour : And not pay him ? Accused : Oh, no. 1 would have to payProceeding, witness Raid the lent of the shoo was £4 10s, and that he employed Uiree people. The expenses were nt>out £50 per month. He had to take all second-hand pianos accepted as part payment of new Spencer pianos. Mr. Dunn : Did Webbe evei- promise to assist you with money '! Witness : Yes ; he never carried it out- Continuing, Falkner said he had the right to alter the price of pianos if he thought fit, but he had to be vnsnnnsible for any reduction. (Proceeding.)