ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES

Evening Star, Issue 19549, 6 May 1927, Page 3

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES

SHIEL AMD BARNETT CHARGED SUPREME COURT HEARING Henry Emmet Shiei and, Stanley, Kitchener Barnett appeared in the Supreme Court this morning to answer charges of false pretences and 'of forgery. There were nine counts in all. Both pleaded not guilty. 1 Mr A. G. Neill appeared for Shiei, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for Barnett. ’ The Crown Prosecutor (Air F. B. Adams) hnd both counsel for accused freely exorcised their right of challenging, thus exhausting the panel. When those who had been challenged were called again the jury was completed. In opening the case the Crown Prosecutor said the whole series of counts arose out of a single transaction in regard to some motor cars. The first count was one of false pretences, by which it was alleged a Fiat motor car of the value of £298 was obtained from the Motor Engineering Company. The car was actually obtained; it was for the jury to decide whether it was obtained by means of false pretences. The Fiat car was obtained for the personal benefit of Shiei. and Barnett seemed to have acted as agent. _ Shiei and Barnett had been charged jointly. It 1 did not matter if one person alone benefited; if they acted with a common desire in pursuance of the end, they were equally liable. In respect to the forging of a cheque for £93 in the name of G. S. Thompson, who actually did not exist, Mr Adams said the Crown contended that it was a forgery used in the prosecution of the common design of the two. If a cheque were forged by.one and uttered by another the two persons were equally guilty if the cheque were intended to be acted upon as if it were genuine. Learned counsel went on to say that from the facts he thought the jury would infer that, while the accused Shiei signed thecheque, he did so with the knowledge: of the accused Barnett; not that Barnett was going to make anything out of it, but did so as part of the common design. He thought the jury would also conclude that Barnett handed over the cheque, but did so at the request of Shiei, with his knowledge and as part of the common design. Learned counsel went on to deal with the other charges. The last charge was one in which the accused were charged with conspiring together by fraudulent means to defraud the Motor and Engineering Company. In respect to that charge the jury could either convict or acquit both accused; in respect to all the other charges the jury could convict one and discharge the other. Mr Adams went on j.o trace the history of, the deal. He pointed out that Barnett, who was employed as a salesman at Shiels’s Garage, saw C. T. Thomson, the salesman from the Motor and Engineering Company, and mention to him that it was proposed to buy from his firm a Fiat motor, and to trad© in a Bu.ick motor as part payment. Thomson had a look at the car, and was led to believe it was in good order. It was said that the purchaser of the Fiat was a G. S. Thompson, and the salesman Thomson waited about to see him, but was not able to, because the G. S. Thompson was a fictitious person. However, a sale note was produced, signed by G. S. Thompson. There was a double purpose in the creation of the character G. S. Thompson —to conceal the identity of Emmet Shiei and to create the impression that the Buick car, which bad really been lying in Sbiels’s garage, was in actual use on the road between Dunedin and Balfour. When Thomson and others went to take delivery of the Buick car it went down to Cumberland street by its own force and stopped, ov rather, it went down by the force of gravity. Dealing with the cheque for £9B. learned counsel said that Shiei made arrangements with the bank. When the cheque arrived at the bank the official sent for Shiei, who gave bis own cheque for £93, getting in exchange the cheque signed “ G. S. Thompson,” which was destroyed. Counsel said he could not imagine why a bank should lend itself to that sort"of thing. He did not doubt that the bank would disavow the action of its officer. The speaker described the whole thing as an “elaborate swindle.” The court adjourned till the afternoon.