SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 May 1928, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

BANKRUPT’S FRAUD VALUELESS CHEQUES CASHED (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 10. James Wright Fynes, formerly a restaurant keeper in the city, was tried at the Supreme Court to-day on charges of failing to keep proper books of accounts and contracting debts when not in a position to pay them.

Fynes’s bankruptcy was described by the Crown Prosecutor as unsatisfactory. The deficiency admitted by bankrupt was £950, but the Official Assignee found it actually £l6OO. All Fynes had to show for his financial position was a bank book, but this was useless, as other cheques had been uttered by Fynes and drawn in fictitious names on accounts which did not exist. He had cashed cheques with a film of. fishmongers for £7 12s, £8 4s. £7 ss, and £8 12s, purchasing a small quantity of fish and taking the rest in cash. The firm had lost in four days the fish supplied and about £3O in cash, which they had been unable to recover from Fynes. Prisoner was found guilty on both counts, and was remanded for sentence. SENTENCES IMPOSED. CHRISTCHURCH, May 11. At the Supreme Court to-day, the following prisoners were sentenced: — James Wright Fynes, 58, formerly cafe proprietor, two charges breaches of Bankruptcy Act, six months in gaol. The police report said that the prisoner had sponged on women, defrauding them. z Norman Clark, house breaking and theft, 'reformative detention for two years.

James William Falkingham, receiving property dishonestly obtained, two ‘charges, three years’ hard labour. Alfred Norinan O’Meara, theft from person, six months’ gaol. Charles Edward Blacklock, theft, probation for three years and to make restitution.

John William McClure, burglaries in 1919, probation, as he had lately been in gaol on other charges. Tn sentencing Falkingham, Judge Adams said that prisoner, while keeping in the background, had joined two wellknown criminals, and not merely acted as “fence” for them, but as provocateur. His Honor said that he took a serious view of the case. CHINESE “PERMIT” FRAUDS AUCKLAND. May 10. Fraudulent dealings with his fellow countrymen were alleged in the Supreme Court to-day against a Chinese named Charlie Lee, who pleaded guilty to four charges of obtaining money by falsely representing that he could obtain an extension of their permits to stay in New Zealand. The accused is of middle age, and the Chinese from whom he is alleged to have obtained sums totalling £66, are much younger men.

The Crown Prosecutor said that the charges centred round three young Chinese who arrived in Auckland in October, 1925. There was a procedure by which a Chinese could obtain a permit to remain in this country for six months. The Customs Department did, occasionally, at its discretion, grant extensions. Tt was alleged that the accused obtained various sums from the Chinese, stating that, in return for the payments, he would arrange for extensions of their permits. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, adding the following rider: — “Tn view of the evidence in this case, a recommendation should be made to the proper authorities that steps be taken to prevent Chinese from overstaying their time allowed by the permit.

Hjs Honor said he agreed with .the rider, stating he thought that a great deal of looseness in connection with these permits had been disclosed.The prisoner was remanded foi* sentence.