ALLEGED BACKING

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 29, 4 February 1925, Page 9

ALLEGED BACKING

FROM A BARONET

SETTLER LOSES; £75,

The details of a happening whereby a ypung man named Alfred Joseph Fogarty obtained £75 from a settler named Jeremiah O'Meara, by an alleged false representation that he was backed by Sir Joseph Ward, were ventilated before Sir Robert. Stout, Chief Justice, and a jury of twelve at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, when Fogarty was charged with obtaining £75 by ialso pretences, and the theft of the

• Mr">? v Willl ams waa•■foreman'of the ¥ r;, 1-x?- K< MacaSßey l'rosecutaccused 'E' Watß°n rePresented The .case as submitted by Mr. Macassey showed that accused was a canvasJvm -uTu o>Meara- He informed U Meant;that he.had some relatives coming to him, and. wanted some more furniture, costing £76. He. said the moneylenders.. wanted more interest than he would pay, and he had seen Sir Joseph Ward who would back his bill. He said he would not lend money himself, .b, u* w.OU ld back him. O'Meara, asked that the backing be arranged. Fogarty ater saw him in the street, and,got him to apeak to someone on the telephone, ihat.someone said he was/,Sir Joseph Ward, and told O'Meara, to lend the money O'Meara then gave a cheque for £75, and took an 1.0. U. for the amount, plus jhterest.. When the 1.0. U. fell.-due it was not met, .and -on O.Meara seeing Sir Joseph Ward the latter denied ever having had the telephone conversation or making any arrangements to^bacfc Fogarty. The police were, informed. - Fogarty persisted in his story, and. was finally arrested ■' - . Evince, was given by O'Meara, Sir Joseph Ward, and Detective Walsh on these lines Sir Joseph Ward" admitted having had a conversation with accused at some time about, the time of the alleged offence, but he denied ever having any conversation about backing a. bill He would have paid the money himself first,! but. he. never did either evidence was .called for the defence^ Mr. Watson Suggested.' to the jury: that i ogarty had >en quite optimistic and had endeavoured to get O'Meara' to see_ the backer. Unless it was proved that Fogarty was in collusion with-the person who spoke as Sir Joseph, Fogarty could not be accused of false pretences. When ho rang he might have got a wrong number, and someone there may have said: he wjis the one wanted out of curiosity, or for some other reason. A hundred things might have happened. Accused, knew Sir Joseph Ward and probably thought he would back his bill: Fogarty's actions appeared, to have been, uinoujnt enough, and the man to blame was O'Meara who' should have been to see* dir Joseph. His Honour, summing up, said the case was a simple one, in which- the facts were clear. Accused had said he wanted the- money , for not more than a month. It was due in October las,t, more than a month after it was paid to accused, and it had never been paid back. He told O'Meara' he had secured backing when he had never done

The, jury disagreed, and" a new trial was ordered. .'-..■ > ' ; \/