VALUELESS CHEQUES

Evening Post, Issue 20, 24 January 1935, Page 13

VALUELESS CHEQUES

CHRISTCHURCH CASE

TENNIS EXPERT CHARGED

COUNSEL'S APOLOGY TO

BENCH

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

CHEISTCHUBCH, This Day.

Trevor Ehodes-Williams, aged 29, the well-known Canterbury lawn tennis representative, and formerly provincial singles: champion, appeared in the Magistrate's Court today on' throe chargos of issuing valueless cheques. .fa the course of evidence it was alleged that the accused obtained £56 15s from tho firm of Mason • Struthers, Ltd., where he was employed as tennis expert, in'"the sports department. Tho first witness, Victor E. Hamilton,: manager of Mason Struthers, said that, on January 16 he ascertained that it had been the practice of the accusod for some time to draw cheques on the Bank of New South Wales and cash them with the firm. Witness.' found that on January '14 two cheques had been cashed, both of which were dishonoured when paid into the firm's bank.- > .•■ ... .- :.. ■'■ -.. ■:. ,-. -..;' ■■ ■-

-.At this stage counsel for the accused, .Mr. Bussell, asked that the accused' be allowed to sit down in. the dock, but the Magistrate, Mr, E. D. Mosley, said he saw no. reason to grant the request, as Ehodes-Williams was not ill of aged. Witness added that he interviewed the accused in the presence of two bank officers who said that the accused had been told, somo time before that his High Street account had beon closed and that he had been refused a cheque boot ■ Bhodes-Williams admitted, that he had secured cheque forms from a person whose name witness had forgotten. The accused agreed that,there had been £19 10a in his' account at the time of the drawing of the cheques. The amount obtained from the firm, by means of valueless cheques was £56155. , . '

Mr. Eussell then- proceeded to examine the "witness concerning a telephone conversation between witness and counsel, i

The fChief .Detective: What is the relevancy of/this? '

The Magistrate: It apparently has somethiifg- to? do; with" > the .defence.

Mr. Eusacll: It is not part of the1 defence. :"'>The defence has not been disclosed; o' :-> ■■:■■ ■ •■" ■■":'. ■ ■■■'■■■. ■■■

The Well, then, if it is not part of the defence you have no right toask tho Question. ■■ ' ' '; Mr. Bussell:- It "is part of. my; defence, ■.:....■. ;:J. '~[-.■:,. ■ ',•:■' . -,■..' ■ ■.'

i TJio Magistrate: Be honest with the Court; ' '.".. .■. •:,'. ■ ■ ■'.. '. .' v, ■ '■■ ■'.'■

Mr. Eussell: M object to a reflection on ■my 'conduct—a reflection that: I am, not honest. ■ ..■ ■■'.■-• '■ ■•:'''*. ■ '■'.■■; ■'.'■■:''

After further .exchanges the Magistrate said, "I-want an apology. Mr. Eussell. I will >give' you ten. minutes."

Tho Court adjourned for ten min-utes,-'and on the resumption counsel said it was unfortunate that the incident had arisen, and ho expressed regrot. Continuing, tho witness Hamilton said he did not remember it being suggested that Rhodes-Williams was a young man and might bo worthy of a chance. There was a minute on the books of the company that any servant found guilty of dishonesty should be reported to the police. The accused pleaded not guilty and was committed for trial-, bail being allowed.' An application for tho suppression of the accused's name was refused.