FRAUD ALLEGED

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 138, 11 June 1926, Page 4

FRAUD ALLEGED

BRAND ON PAINT DRUMS

COMPANY MANAGER CHARGED

EVIDENCE Oi 1 EMPLOYEES.

(By Telegraph— Press Association;); *■'; CHRISTCHURCH, 10th, JanS. £": In the case in which Ernest Alfred A kins, manager of Andrew Lees, Ltd., oil and paint merchants, was charged that with intent to defraud lie attempted to obtain £2 19s from Oarl'Gv Johansen by falsely representing;„haj;., two 281b drums of Hartman's No. 2. Bed Hand paint were Hartman's No. 1 paint, Carl G. Johansen, painter., aud paperhaiiger, of Linwood, utatcd "that lie had been dealing with "Andrew Lees, Ltd., for 16 years. In' October' he ordered iewt of Hartman's" N"6~"l~ Red Band paint along with some other goods. He took delivery of the paint on 2nd October, but he h,ad jipt, examined i(, as he thought everything was all right. A day or two-later-he-! opened the paint. He had anothc* drum of No. 1 paint, and when the drums were together he found that the ' new paint was more chocolate iv..tint. and thinner in body than the other. He had received an account for '£2;'Ji)s r for the paint. , „ Continuing, the witness said that' on tho 11th of October he went to' Andrew Lees to pay his account, and asked the.accused of the firm had altered "its' drums. The accused had sai .'-FiaS" that was not'so, and took witness.down.., to the cellar where the paint was stored. Witness then told tho ..accused,,. that he had been "sehlintered." lie_ had not since had any conversation- • with the accused about the matter. Gn • the afteriioon of the same day 'a carrier from Andrew Lees came to"his" house with a drum of No. 1 He'd Band : paint, and asked if witness would. „ex,-. „ change it for the ones which he had in his possession. He had never-ordered" No. 2 paint. He had not reported the — matter to tho Master Painters' Association, nor had he handed tho'matter'.' over to the police. '•'•-<- H. J. Harrison, a traveller employed.. by Andrew Lees, Ltd., for the pa.sLJ2 years, Baid that by the brands' '.on i;hc drums produced he could toll that-, they;; came from Andrew Lees, Ltd. The lettering on the drums looked strange. From their appearance he would think that they contained No. 2 paint. He had seen a paint remover used on tins in store. Ho had taken the No. 2 mark ofE some of the drums under accused's orders. That was about two years ago. He could not say if anyone else had removed any numbers. The reason ho had removed the number was that they were short of .-NciL-.L,; paint at the time. , He remembered an order for turpentine. Thero^were two gallons of "now turpo," an inferior grade, and two gallons of best turpentine, which he had been- : -OjtUfa. ■ mix together and seal up in an ordinary drum. This was- also <!on«-uiuler_ tlio accused's orders. He also remembered a contract for the Sprcydon., School, in which it was rtipulated that; 21oz glass should be used. Some of»- ---■ the glass used was very thin, but it had been bought for 21oz glass. Ho was not suggesting that the; brands wero taken off to defraud anyone; tho purpose was merely to distinguish it. as their own paint. With regard, to,.the • glass, he did not know whether, the .thin; glass was used purposely. '- • -v ' ■ Mr.: Brown produced a statement made by Harricon to Dctftctive-Ser-geant J. B. Young, in which Harrison stated that during the whole-tinit. he had been in tho firm's employ it had. been tho practice to remove the N<s. 2 brand and sell the drums as No. l,,.and, that this had been done in every instance upon instructions by the accused. Jack Francis Beecroft stated that he had been employed at Andrew Lees, Ltd., about twelve months ag0,... He had been employed for five years;, and : had been storeman for part of'*"'"thattime. He had seen Akins taking off brand No. 2 by painting it over and putting on brand No. 1. He would do this when paint was going out jem an order. "Witness had seen Ms".on-. ' on several occasions with a cardboard stencil reading No. 1. Altins'-K'aU'-utr' tho stencil himself. This continued up to the time witness left th Cfirm in ]92. To his knowledge nobody e^so had seen this done except omr[or two ot-hor employees. Not long a*ter writ--ness started work there, ho was told" by Aldus to take out two gallons of turpentine from each of thrjje -- &££s£: containing two tins of tu^pentdKb" apiece and tp put iv "new tutpo" in its place. "New turpo" was.Muferior and cheaper than turpentine.-;.;_ This was' done by punching a small hole under'the cap of a tin and pouring part of the turpentine off, afterwards filling. the tiu with "new turpo." , ..;.,: , :. Mr. Batchelor asked the Bench,.,to note his objection that the whole of, the evidence of the last witness^ was inadmissable. To Mr. Batchelor, witness admitted that he had a grudge against Akins. He had told a few people that" he would "got one back" on Akins..... „,.. Charles Stanley Hewitt stated that he had been employed carting, for-An-drew Lees, Ltd. He had seen employees remove No. 2 from drumsj- -bu.frJiOm had never soen No. P-put on. He had? seen Akin's son removing num.be.rs,. but he had never seen the ae'sWl'.'StO-'.. so. There had been previous trouble over that kind of paint. Under Harrison's instructions he had removed numbers from drums. „----. Mr. Batchelor submitted that the case had not been proved. The Bench must bear in mind the relation of-the - witnesses to the accused, who had been, manager for Andrew Lees, Ltd., for -0 years. Tho evidence placed before the Court did not. prove that there ;! ..hai(l been any systematic fraudulent '.tleaJa ing 3. Throughout the iiroccecliiigs"tlrc. accused had acted as an honest man. They had tho evidence of Bece'rffft.an*. Hewitt, Who had been discharged from tho firm. One of these men had admitted that he bore a grudge .against the accused. Theso drums might iiaVp been taken away and altered off the;.. premises. The manufacturer's^ number had been removed from the drums, which would bo of no assistance to the accused, but would help anyone else who was trying to "work a sehhnter on the accused. If these manutuatnrinc numbers were on the drums the shipment could be traced He submitted that, considering the ' possibilities of what might have happened,, no jury would convict the accused., There were too many people who had-an opportunity of altering the -nun***. Paint remover was used for a. Icg-.i-mate purpose. Ho suggested that, owing to the unsatisfactory ovidem-.e before the Court, the Bench sbouUU . - miss the case. '.;7 •"'"'"' The accused pleaded not guilty, ieserved his defence, and was committed to 'the 'Supremo Court for trial:-Ba^-was granted, self £100 and one-surety of £200. ,-*.-. "..,