PAINT SUBSTITUTION ALLEGED

Evening Star, Issue 19273, 11 June 1926, Page 2

PAINT SUBSTITUTION ALLEGED

CHARGE AGAINST MANAGED [Per United Press Association.J GHRiSTCH UP CM, June IU. Ernest Allred Akins, malinger ul Andrew Lees, .Lid., ml and paint merchants, was charged at tlie Magistrate’s Court that with intent to defraud he did attempt to obtain from Carl G. Johansen the sum of £2 ids by falsely representing that two 281 b drums ol Hartiuen’s No. 2 (ted Hand paint was iiartmcn’s No. 1 paint. Justices of the Peace were on the bench, and Air J. P. Batchelor appeared for the accused, and Mr A. \V. Brown represented the Crown Prosecutor.

Carl G. Johansen, painter and paperhanger, Aldwin's road, Linwood, stated that he had been dealing with Andrew Lees. Ltd., for sixteen years. In October he bad been painting a bouse in Western terrace. He bad ordered of Hartmon’s No. 1 Peel Hand paint, along with some other goods. The paint bad been delivered to his bouse on October 2, and lie took delivery of it, but he bad not examined it, as be thought everything was all right. A day or two Inter he opened the paint. He had another drum of No. 1 paint with him on the job, and it was when the drums wore together that lie noticed something peculiar about the new drums. He poured a little from each drum and analysed the color. Tho new paint was more chocolate looking and thinner in body than the paint which ho had taken with him. He then packed them up, and took them back to his house. Ha had received an account for £2 19s for the paint. On October 11 be went to Andrew Lees to pay his account, and he had asked the accused if tho firm had altered its drums. Accused had said that that was not so. and took witness down to the cellar where the paint was stored. Witness then told him that ho had been “ schlintered.” He had not since had any'Conversation with the accused about the matter. On the afternoon of the same day a carrier from Andrew Lees came to his house, and had a drum of No. 1 Red Hand paint. lie asked if witness would exchange it for the ones which he had in his possession. Ho had never ordered No. 2 paint. He had pot reported the matter to the Master Painters’ Association nor had ho handled tho matter over to the police. H. J. Harrison, a traveller, employed by Andrew Lees, Ltd., for the past twelve years, said ho had overheard part of tho conversation between Johansen and Akins. Ho had nothing to do with Johansen’s order. By the brands on the drums produced ho could tell that they came from Andrew Lees, Ltd. Tho lettering on tho drums looked strange, and by the appearance of the drums he would think that they contained No. 2 paint. He had seen a paint remover used on tins in the store. Ho had taken a No. 2 mark off some of tho drums under the accused’s orders. That was about two years ago, He could not say if anyone* else had removed any numbers. The reason why ho had removed the number was because they wore short of No. 1 paint at the time. Ho remembered an order for turpentine. There were two gallons of “ new turpo ” of nn inferior grade, and two gallons of tho best turpentine, which ho had been told to mix together and seal up in nn ordinary drum. This was also done under accused’s orders. Ho also remembered a contract for tho Spreydon School, in which it was stipulated'that 21oz glass should bo used. Some of tho glass used was very thin, but it had been bought for 21oz glass. He was not suggesting tho brands were taken off' to defraud anyone, the purpose was merely to distinguish it ns their own paint. With regard to the glass, ho did not know whether the thin glass was used purposely. Mr Brown produced a statement mado by the witness to Detective-ser-geant J. B. Young, in which ho said that during tho whole time ho had been in the firm’s employ it had been the practice to remove tho No. 2 brand and sell the drums as No. 1, and that this had been done in every instance upon instructions bv accused.

Jack Francis Bcecroffc stated that he had been employed by Andrew Lees, Ltd., until about 1924. Ho had boon employed for five years, and had been storeman for part of that time. Ho had seen Akins taking off the brand No. 2 by painting it over, and putting on brand No. 1. He would do this when paint was going out on an order. Witness had seen this done on several occasions with a cardboard stencil reading “ No. 1.” Akins had cut the stencil himsolf. This continued up to the time witness left tho firm in 1924. To his knowledge nobody else had seen this done except one or two other employees. Not long after witness started work there ho was told by Akins to take out two gallons of turpentine from each of three cases containing two tins of turpentine apiece, and to put in “ now turpo ” in their place. “ New turpo ” was inferior and cheaper than turpentine. The method of doing this was by punching a small hole under the cap on the tin, and pouring part of the turpentine off, afterwards filling tho tin with “ new turpo.” Mr Batchelor asked tho bench to note his objection that the whole of the evidenco of the last witness was inadmissible.

To Mr Batchelor, witness admitted ho had a grudge against Akins. Ho had told a few people ho would “ get one back ” on to Akins.

Charles Stanley Hewitt stated that lie had been employed carting for Andrew Lees, Ltd. Ho bad seen the employees remove No. 2 from drums, hut lie had never seen No. 1 put on. Ho had seen Akins’s son removing the numbers, but ho had never seen the accused do so. There had been previous trouble over that kind of paint. Under Harrison’s instructions bo had removed the numbers from drums.

Mr Batchelor, for accused, submitted that the case had rot been proved. The bench must bear in mind the relation of the witnesses to accused. Accused had been manager for Andrew Lees, Ltd., for twenty years. Tho evidence placed before tho court did not prove that there had been any systematic fraudulent dealings. Throughout the proceedings accused had acted as an honest man. They had tho evidence of Beecroft and Hewitt, who had been discharged from the firm. One of these man had admitted that he bore a grudge against accused. These drums might have been taken away and altered off the premises. The manufacturing number had been removed from the drums, which would be of no assistance to accused, but would help anyone else who was trying to “ work a schlinter ” on accused. If these manufacturing numbers were on the drums the shipments could he_ 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 had the opportunity of altering the numbers. The paint remover was used for a legitimate purpose. Ho suggested that, owing to the unsatisfactory evidence before the court, the Bench should dismiss tho case.

Accused pleaded not guilty, and reserved his defence, and was committed to the Supremo Court for trial. Bail was granted in self £IOO, and one surety of £2OO.