ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 204, 12 August 1927, Page 3

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES

CHARGE AGAINST FRANK BURGE. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Following on the charges of false pretences against Frank Burge and Oliver Burge, of Hastings, sawmiller, was yesterday afternoon in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr A. M. Mowiem, S.M., charged, on or about February 11, at Hastings, with in- • tent to defraud, lie did obtain from C. and A. Odlin, merchants, Wellington, £79 14/7 by means of false pretences, to wit, by falsely representing that he supplied them with 40,982 feet of timber valued at £Ol2 0/2, between January 10 and Janary 25, 1927, whereas lie had supplied omy 36,307 feet, valued at £532 5/7. Detective Fitzgibbon conducted the prosecution, ana Mr. C. Duff appeared for the defence. Mr. E. Commin watched the proceedings on behalf of defendants. In outlining the facts, Detective Fitzgibbon said that an investigation of the dockets, made as the result of information seceived, disclosed additions, alterations and fabrications in the figures on the dockets. The present charge differed from the other, inasmuch as the money had been paid by Odlins. Albert E. Palmer, chartered accountant. of Hastings, gave evidence that he prepared the invoices for Burge Bros, from figures and prices supplied by the firm. The receipt in his handwriting (produced) represented the payment of the January timber supplied by Burge to Odlins and he received a cheqe which he lodged in the Bank of New Zealand to the Glen Orr Timber Company’s (Burge’s) account. He got a request from Mr. Poppelwell, Odlin’s manager, for the delivery docket books. He wrote to Burge asking for the delivery dockets and Frank Burge brought the book (produced). Mr. Burge had no hesitation in handing over the book and he stated witness could hand it to Poppelwell. who could false what extracts he pleased from it. He never saw anything from Burge's accounts to show that the accounts were not in order. From his dealings with the Burges, he iiad never any reason to suspect their honesty. He had been called upon to adjust accounts between Odlins and Burges and to bring about a settlement, if possible, as to prices and things of that sort. The matter of the adjustment was a mutual arrangement tor the parties to meet in witness's office. SHORTAGE OF 90 PIECESAdrian Poppelwell ,manager for C. and A. Odlin at Hastings, traversed much of his testimony given iu the previous case. He communicated with defendant regarding a shortage of 90 pieces, They checked the load togetner and Burge was satisfied, blaming it on the mill, and ultimately liability was denied. The book produced represented the deliveries from Burge Bros, from January 10 to January 24, 1927, and it was from that book that Odlin’s copies had conic. The dockets bore Odlin’s vardsman’s signature in all cases. Invoices were produced. The figures in the body of the invoices were those of Frank Burge. The invoices represented 40,982 feet of timber as having been supplied between Janary 10 and 24th, inclusive, to the value of £612 0/2. Witness had examined the dockets and checked them against copies of the same dockets in Burge's book, and in his examination he found that the dockets delivered to him disagreed with the copies in Burge's book. In some places different figures were showing and in other places, in Odlin’s delivery dockets, figures were showing which were not in the original book af Burge Bros. In all of witness's copies he could trace alterations, and in some cases additions. He also found strange figures- In this regard he quoted the dockets in detail. Taking the book as the basis of the correct amount, the excess charged for was 4,075 feet and the value £79 14/7. The amount which covered the supplies from January 10 to 24, was duly certified to for payment. The total of Burge's supply for, January was £lOB4 10,TO, subject to trade discounts. He checked the average weights for January-March, 1926, and compared them with a similar period this year and found tho average in 1926 was 2661 feet per load, against 3527 feet in the 1927 period. Ho got al] the figures from Burges’ statements. To Mr. Duff: Mr. Hill was the yardsman at Odlins from January 10 to 25 of this yew. Witness saw the defendant regarding the 90 pieces shortage, shortly previous to April 5. The timber checked was in the one line in which the shortage occurred. The rest of the load had been stacked away. CHECKING OF DOCKETS. Stanley a Foster, motor mechanic. Palmerston North, said he had been head yardman for Burge Bros, from about November 1. 1926, to January 20, 1927. He filled in the book (produced). From January 11 to January 21, with two exceptions, all the dockets were in witness’ writing, but the exceptions were checked bv 'him He had examined Odlin’s cobies and he found there figures that were not his in practically every one of them. There was no reason whv these figures should appear. The dockets were either made out cr checked after the load was completed and one copy was handed to the driver (Odlin’s copy). If anv more timber was required it would be made a separate entrv hut the load would not be completed until the yardman was satisfied that his driver had a load. Once this tally was entered into the book the figures were not altered. The lorry man never asked witness for more timber, as far as lie remembered. One docket would be given to the driver, either the original or the first cotthe other would be kept until Burge requested his copy, and the third would remain in the book. If the dockets did not agree with their relative dockets, then some alterations must have been made after thev left his hands, and he knew by comoarison that they did not agree. In reply to Mr Duff, witness said that the timber listed in the dockets signed by him was loaded under his supervision, or the dockets were checked by him after the load was completed, and in the majority of cases he handed Odlin’s docket to the driver. Ronald J. McDonald, accountant at the Hastings branch of the Bank of New Zealand, gave evidence of alterations, substitutions and additions to figures on the lines of his previous evidence There was no cross-examination. Albert P ,B. Collins, clerk in the employ of C. and O. Odlin. Hastings, gave evidence similar to that given (Continued on Next Column).

(Continued from Previous Column). by him in the previous case, relative to defendant’s suggestion that witness should alter his dockets, and to his offering to see that witness was paid, as well as to the subsequent investigation of the dockets. Amos Hill and William Nicholls also gave similar evidence to that given by them in the previous case. This concluded the case for the prosecution. PLEA OF NOT GUILTY. The defendant pleaded not guiltv. and was committed for trial at Supreme Court sitting at Napier next Tuesday, bail being allowed in his own recognisance of £2OO.