A COUNTERFEIT COIN

Evening Star, Issue 15480, 30 April 1914, Page 2

A COUNTERFEIT COIN

WOMAN SENT FOR TRIAL. Elizabeth Pollock was charged at the Police Court yesterday afternoon with Uttering at Dunedin, on April 8, a. counterfeit coin—an imitation hall-sovereign—-to Mrs Dreaver. Mr 0. X. Sour appeared for the defendant. Chief-detective Herbert conducted tits prosecution, ar.d called evidence. Freda Garshaw, saleswoman at Mrs Dreaver's drapery shop in George street, said the defendant on tho evening of the Bth inst. entered the shop and selected an underskirt- tendering a sixpence and allOther coin (produced) in payment. The coin was an imitation half-sovereign, arid was brought back by an employee in the office as a bad one. Witness looked for the defendant, bub she had disappearedThe coins had beer handed to witness with the sixpence uppermost. Evidence was given by Ada May Neilscui, cashier at Airs Dreaver's shop. Alexander Stewart, licensee of the Law Courts Hotel, said the defendant had been in his employ for the paet year. Towards the end of March he received from the porter a coin similar to tho on© produced, with instructistfis from the defendant to send two bottles of whisky to her father at Hampden. At a later stage he mentioned the matter to the defendant, telling h"X that he did not think the coin was good. She said she had received it as a halfsovereign, but did net remember from whom' she had received it. The defendantseemed to think even then that the coin was a good one. He had been "taken [down" ".vith similar coins before, and he knew it was a bad one', though the girl could hardly be expected tb know that. Be saw her again in company .with Detective Hammerley, ar.d asked her what was the matter. She replied: <; You know about I that half-sovereign." hut still seemed to ' think it was genuine. In reply to Mr : Scurr, witness said he had always found the defendant honest and trustworthy, and ha did not think she would cheat anyone. Money found by her in the boarders' rooms was always accounted for.

Acting-detective Hammerley, who arrested the defendant, said she had offered to pay for the skirt if given a chance, but that could not be done. Before he took her to the station ehe was recognised by Miss Garshaw. The defendant had told witness that «he had noticed that the coin was different from others, but thought it was all right to pass. -Mr Sourr contended that the - evidence was not sufficiently strong to warrant the committal of the case to the Supreme Court. Under the Crimes Act the penalty fixed for this offence was 12 montW imprisonment. The present defendant" was an honest, straightforward, and reliable person, and treated everybody fairly, including her employer. The evidence against, the defendant was entirely contained in th.3 statement made by MiStewart, ana that was the sole indication of guilty intention. He told her that hedid not think the coin was good, and that was the only indication she could have had. The defendant appeared to have doubted that it was a bad coin.* After making her purchase the woman had left the shop in the ordinary way. There were several different kinds of half-sovereigns, and it would be difficult for a parson like tho defendant to know whether they were genuine or not. It was a caee in which no jury would convict, and he asked that it should be dismissed. The Magistrate: I am afraid you will have to tell the jury that. A prima facie case has been made out. Mr Scurr reserved his defence, and accused was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in accused's own recognisance of £2O and two sureties of £lO, or one of £2O.