MOTOR TRANSACTIONS

Evening Star, Issue 19617, 25 July 1927, Page 7

MOTOR TRANSACTIONS

ACCUSED TO STAND TRIAL FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD The false pretences charges against 'Alexander Campbell, manager; James Bhatv Campbell, draper; Samuel Campbell, draper; Charles James Thomas Alexander Lowery, valuer; Frederick William Bamfield, accountant; and Clifford Peel, salesman, were continued at the Police Court to-day. The first five defendants named were jointly charged aa follows:

On December 22, 1925, with intent to defraud, they procured of £435 from the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation, Ltd., to bo delivered to the N.Z. Motor and Engineering Co., Ltd., by falsely representing that Robert Scott Grey had purchased a new Delago motor car, valued at £650, and had paid a deposit of £215 on same. q On February 15, 1926, with intent to defraud, they procured the sum of £515 from the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation, Ltd., to be delivered to _ the N.Z. Motor and Engineering Co., Ltd., by falsely representing that James Shaw Campbell had purchased _a new Stai motor car, valued at £775, and had paid a deposit of £260. .... . On February 15, 1926, with intent to defraud, they procured the sum of £515 from the Traders' Finance Corporation, Ltd., to be delivered to the N.Z. Motor and Engineering Co., Ltd., by falsely representing that Alexander Campbell had purchased a new Star motor car, yahied at £7/5, and had paid a deposit of £260. On February 15, with intent to defraud, they procured the sum of £565 from the Traders’ Finance Corporation, Ltd., to bo delivered to the N.Z. Motor ami Engineering Co., Ltd., bv falsely representing that Samuel 'Campbell had a new Star motor car, valued at £BSO, and had paid a deposit of £285. On March 1, 1926, with intent to defraud, they procured tho silm of £515 from the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation, to bo delivered to the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Co"., Ltd., by falsely representing that Charles James Lowery had purchased a new Star motor car, valued at £775, and had paid a deposit of £260. On March 26, 1926, with intent to defraud, thev procured tho sum ol £330 from tho Otago and Southland Finance Corporation, Ltd., to be delivered to the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Co., Ltd., by falsely representing that Walter Morris Lowe had purchased a new Star motor car, valued at £495, and had paid a deposit of £165. The same five defendants, together with Clifford Peel, were jointly charged that— On March 6, 1926, with intent to defraud, they procured tho sum of £465 from the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation, to bo delivered to the N.Z. Motor and Engineering Co., Ltd., by falsely representing that Clifford Peel had purchased a new Star motor lorry of tho value of £695, and had paid a deposit of £230 as part payment.. On March 26, 1926, with intent to defraud, procured tho sum of £495 from the Traders’ Finance Corporation, Ltd., to be delivered to the N.Z. Motor and Engineering Co., Ltd., by falsely representing that Clifford Peel had purchased a new Star motor car valued at £495, and had paid a deposit of £165 as part-pay-ment for the said car. On October 6, 1926, with intent to defraud, procured tho sum of £365 from the Trader’s Finance Corporation, Ltd., to be delivered to the N.Z. Motor and Engineering Co., Ltd., by' falsely representing that Olive Smith had purchased a new Star motor car ■ valued at £550, and had paid a deposit of £lB5 as part payment. Mr W. L. Moore appeared for the defendants Alexander, James, and Samuel Campbell, Mr W. G. Hay for tho defendant Bamfield, and Mr W. Ward for the defendant Lowery. Peel conducted his own case. After hearing tho first senes of charges the Magistrate decided to amend the wording of the charges from “obtained” to “ procured,”- and adding “to be delievered to the N.Z. Motor and Engineering Co., Ltd.” John Greenfield, accountant, local agent for the Traders’ Finance Corporation, Auckland, described the method adopted by the corporation in advancing money. It was assumed that a third of the purchase price had been paid by the buyer, and the balance was then provided by the corporation. A sum of £515 and another of £562 had been advanced to the N.Z. Motoring and Engineering Co. on the assumption that sales had been made to Alexander Campbell and Samuel Campbell respectively. The promissory notes had all been niet before the company went into liquidation. . To Mr Hay:'The corporation financed hire purchases, and not straight-out purchases. The Chief Detective stated that that closed the case for the prosecution as far as the first series of charges was concerned. ~ , Mr Hay said evidence would not be called for the defence at that stage. The defendants reserved their defence and were committed for trial at the nest sitting of the Supreme Court. The hearing of tho other, charges was then continued, when evidence was given by Hugh Blake Burdekm, general manager tor the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation. The company gave an advance of £465 to the N.Z. Motoring and Engineering Company on March 0, 1926, on a motor -ar purporting to have been sold to the accused Pt’el. All the promissory notes had since been met. John Greenfield gave evidence that tho Traders’ Finance Corporation had advanced £330 to the company respecting the alleged sale of a car to Cliffoid Peel. All the promissory notes had not been met, tho sum of £l4B 10s being owing. Respecting that amount a bond warrant had been received showing that the car that had allegedly been sold was still in bond. Tho company had also advanced £365 resjiocting tho sale of a car to Olive Smith. All tho promissory notes had not been met, the outstanding amount being £332 7s Bd. To Accused Peel: He could not say whether he received tho application personally. He did not inspect the car or send anyone to do so. It was not customary for him to inspect cars for which applications for advances had, * been made. Witness did nob have in court his file in respect to transactions in other cases. Accused Peel said the file was ot importance to him in bis defence. The Magistrate: It will have to bo obtained. , , ■ , , Witness later records of ■}ho applications made by tho New Zealand Motor" and Engineering Company The Chief Detective said that m st of the documents were merely copies of those already in possession of the court. Accused: When an application is made for an advance, do you know whether it is for, a second-hand car or a new one? , , , , , Witness: If they are second-hand we would bo told by the person presenting the application. He admitted that they had no special form for second-hand cars# Accused: Where is the definition of the car? . Witness: The selling price. Accused: I might sell a car for £750, and it might be a second-hand one. Witness; The price generally indicates

whether it is & second-hand or a new car.

Accused continu ' to cross-examine witness to some length, witness insisting that tho price really indicated whether a vehicle was a new or a second-hand one. , “For all yon knew,” said accused, “ Mrs Smith might have had either' a new or a second-hand car. _ ton 1 shovelled ’ out cheques irrespectu c ol twhether the cars were new or secondhand. It seems to me that anyone could go to you and ij;et anything they wanted.” , _ r ~ . Witness admitted to Mr Moore that h company had ample security on the car in bond, and had security over Mis Smith’s. This had not been sold yet, and he would not like to say that the security was ample. Olive Smith, a widow, stated that the accused Peel had been boarding with her. Peel had made a request to her to purchase a Star car, accused asking her to act as trustee and buy in the car, as he did not wish to lose it. She understood it was Fed’s car. Witness knew ho had had it lor some tune. Bhe agreed to take over the car for £4OO, paying £23 per month. The agreement had been placed be. ore her, but it had not been filled in. The iu/staliuonts were to be met by Peel from his commissions, Peel telling her that he had paid £SO deposit out of Us commission. It was not a new car, as she knew accused had had it lor two years. The promissory notes had the stamps on them when she signed them. Evidence was given by Detective Beer to tho effect that he had interviewed Peel at the detective office, and obtained a statement from him. Mr Hay: 1 cannot see what Bamfield has gob to do with this charge? The Chief Detective: Ho signed the promissory notes. The Magistrate, after perusing the exhibits, said that was the case. Tho Magistrate asked what connection had Lowery with the sale of" Mrs Smith's car. This accused had apparently ceased to be a director of the company at the time of the transaction.

The Chief Detective said that was so, though ho was still a shareholder. His Worship said that was not sufficient. The charge against Lowery in this matter would be struck out. The usual “caution” was put to tho accused Peel as being unrepresented by counsel. Tills accused reserved his defence. Mr Moore, on behalf of his clients, pleaded not guilty. Mr Hay pleaded not guilty on behalf of Bamfield, who reserved his defence, which, said counsel, would bo that there was no intention to defraud. Mr Ward, on behalf of Lowery, reserved his defence. All the accused were committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supremo Court,

On the question of bail, the Chief Detective said that all the accused were local residents, and had appeared on summons. There was only a week to the Supremo Court sitting. Bail was fixed for .the three Campbells and Bamfield in the sum of £2OO and one surety of £2OO on the first charge. On the other charges they would be released on their_ own recognisances in the sum of £SO. Bail in respect of the other accused was fixed at £IOO, with one .surety of £IOO on tho first charge, while on the other charges I they would he released on their own ' recognisances in the sum of £SO.