MAN OF MANY ALIASES

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 37, 12 February 1926, Page 4

MAN OF MANY ALIASES

EXTENSIVE USE OF FORGED

CHEQUES

AUCKLAND FIKMS DEFRAUDED,

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, 11th February.

Just how some of the largest business firms in Auckland were defrauded to tho tune of £139 by means of valueless cheques, and how a man forged cheque's totalling £1396 drawn on the Bank of Australasia at Botorua, was explained in the Magistrate's Court this inorning during the preliminary trial of Henry Lloyd (61 years of age), who.had the following- aliases tacked on to that of Lloyd on the charge sheet:—Alfred Apps, James Francis, James King, Francis E. B. Elliott, i»ae James, Beattie, and Curtiss. Accused, who was born in England, recently arrived from Australia. He was not represented by counsel.

The charges preferred against accused were that he had forged 'Cheques totalling £.1396, and had obtained by means of false pretences and by valueless cheques £20 from J. Brown and Son, £20 from Smith and Caughey, similar sums from John Court, Ltd., Milne and Choyce, Davenport's, and Tonson-Garlick, alao £19 from 1 William Hayes. In all of the cases the evidence given was on the same lines.

This showed that accused went into various business establishments on Bth or 9th January and stated he wished to purchase some furniture for Mr. Lloyd, of Lake House, Eotorua. He would then ask for quotations to l>a sent to "H. Lloyd, Lake House, RotorUa." Then . several days later the firms would receive letters purporting to come from the liconseo of the hotel, stating that a "relative" would call in and purchase the furniture. Just after these letters had been received accused would call again and state that "Mr. Lloyd" wished him to purchase the furniture. In each case a cheque £20' in excess of the purchase price for the furniture would be handed to the salesman, with the explanation that Mr. Lloyd either owed him &i,O or that he desired accused to pay another account with the £20." In all cases except that of William Hayes accused received either a cheque or payment in cash forsi 20. When the business firms passed along the cheques to the bank'in the usual way they were all returned marked "not sufficient funds" and "not H A. Lloyd's account." . The cheques had printed on them, witu a rubber stamp the words, "Lake House Hotel, Eotorua, H. A. Lloyd, Proprietor."

The real Henry Lloyd, of Lake House Hotel, Botorua, st^ed that on 11th January accused, who booked accommodation through Cook's Tourist Agency, came to his house and stayed there until 14th January. Accused requested witness to hand him any letters that came addressed to H. Lloyd relating to the purchase of, furniture. ' This'witness did. Witness had an account with .the Bank of Australasia, Botorua, and al-. ways signed his cheques "H. ■■ A. Lloyd." The cheques examined were not issued by witness. The signature "H. Lloyd" on them was a forgery in ea«h case. • The rubber' stamp on the' cheques was not used at witness's hotel. Witness added that he never at any time gave accused authority to order or purchase fnrniture on his behalf. Albert Hedley Trewavis, employed in the Bank of Australasia, Botorua, stated that on 11th January accused called and opened an account. He gave the name of "Henry Lloyd" and was issued with a'cheque book (produced), which contained thirty forms. On* 14th January he withdrew £11 15s, stating that ne wished ,the withdrawal in order to go to Hamilton. This left only 5s to accused's credit in the bank.

Acting-Detective Power said that as a result of complaints received he made inquiries and went to the' Auckland railway station at 7 p.m. on 18th January, the day when accused received cheques from various business firms. At 7.30 p.m. he saw accused come on the platform and get on board the 7.45 p.m. express for Wellington. When witness accosted him accused stated that his name was Elliott, but later admitted that he was sometimes known, as Lloyd. Witness then accompanied accused to the detective office, where' he was questioned by Chief-Detective Cummins and witness. When witness 'told accused that he had "taken down" a number of Auckland business firms by means of valueless cheques, he admitted he had no authority to purchase furniture for H. A. Lloyd, of Lake House,; Botorua. Accused also admitted calling on various business people, presenting cheques for payment ' and having received money. When searched accused had the sum of 1E153 6s in his possession, a cheqne book on the English, Scottish, and Australian Bank at Euchucha, and another on the Bank of Adelaide, while he also had a rubber stamp containing the words "Lake House, Botorua, H. A. Lloyd, Proprietor, "and two large boxes of cards with the following inscriptions onthem: "B. Sherwood, Custom House, Perth," and "H. Lloyd, Solicitor, Notary Public, Dannevirke." Accused was known by several names, including that of "Mr. Apps." Witness had never known him as "H. Lloyd" before. . . ,

Accused asked the Magistrate whether he held that a prima facie case for forgery had been made out against him.

Mr. J. W. Poynton: "Yes, of course. Lloyd." Accused: "Oh, well, I plead guilty, then." .

Accordingly accused was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. The Magistrate ordered that the money fousd on hipi should be distributed pro rata' to the firms who had been victimised by accused. Fortunately for the furnishing firms, accused was arrested before the furniture ordered by him had been forwarded.