BOY’S FRAUDS

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 July 1927, Page 11

BOY’S FRAUDS

GREYMOUTH ACCIDENT BLAMED. (Special to "Star.”) CHRISTCHURCH, July 22. How impudent frauds are perpetrated on city firms was revealed "in the Magistrate’s Court this morning when a boy appeared before E. Mosley, S.M., on ten charges of obtaining goods by false pretences, one of attempting to obtain goods by false pretences, and one of theft. Mr Malley appeared for accused who pleaded guilty to all charges. Chief Detective Lewis told the Magistrate that the boy was 17 years of age. In company with another lad, he had phoned certain firms purporting to do so on behalf of business people, stating he would send a messenger for cigarettes, which were the subject of the charges. In all, the charges involved a sum of £l4/9/3. Of this amount, goods valued at £4 8/8 had been recovered. With regard to the charge of attempting to defraud, a firm upon whom the accused called to take delivery of the goods ordered, not satisfied with his bona fides, phoned the people for whom the boy said he was working. He then ran off. When the boys cleared out of the city they stole two bicycles. This boy’s parents reside in Christchurch. He has not previously been convicted, but has run away from home on occasions. He passed only the third standard. After leaving school, he ran away to the North Island. During the Dunedin Exhibition period, he again ran away. There is a suggestion that the boy has had injuries which may have affected him mentally. He is older than the other boy. Mr Malley, who asked for probation for accused, said he appreciated the gravity of the offences, but the reason for making the request was the youth of his client. When he was three and a-half years of age, he had been run over by a hansom cab at Greymouth, and had received injuries to his head, the effects of which were still evident. It was possible that this might have had something to do with the offences. It was true that the boy had run away from home, but he had nover before done anything to bring discredit on his family. He had testimonials from several firms for which he had worked in Christchurch. He had already spent a week in Paparua Prison. This would no doubt be a lesson to him. Counsel asked for the suppression of the boy’s name. The father of the accused said that up till the time of the recent offences, his son had conducted himself well. “He has been a very good boy at home,” witness said. “He has run away, but the reason for my reporting the fact to the police was I thought it my duty, because of his youth.” “This case is one either for probation or Borstal Institute,” said the Magistrate, who remanded the case until Tuesday next to enable the probation officer to ipake report. “I will suppress name in the meantime, but I do not promise to do so when lie reappears, even if probation is granted.” Bail was allowed self £5O and one surety of £5O.