SUPREME COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 148, 8 June 1932, Page 10

SUPREME COURT

THE NAPIER SESSIONS ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION. CASE FOR PROSECUTION COMPLETED. The trial of William Ebenezer Hyslop, manager of the Tourist Motor Co., Ltd., Hastings, who pleaded not guilty to two charges of false representation, was continued yesterday afternoon. The Court adjourned at the conclusion of the address of counsel for the accused and the case will be concluded this morning. In regard to the sale of the Studebaker car, the accused toM the Crown Prosecutor that the deal concerned Alex Wyllie and not his brother Ted. Crown Prosecutor: Alex did not seem to know much about it? Accused: [ don’t know about that. Whose was the Dodge car which was traded in for the Studebaker?—Alex’s. In regard to the Studebaker nine car, accused said that he first heard of the sale from Hannay and that he had sold the car to Leonard Wyllie for £l5OO

Crown Prosecutor: Did Hannay explain why he did not tell you that he sold the car for £1250? Accused: No, but I saw the memo. Hannay left it on my desk at Hastings.

What was the total amount you could have received from the Guarantee Corporation?—We received just over £lOO.

The Crown Prosecutor then produced the ledger sheet of F. V. Wyllie showed an entry indicating that an “on demand’’ promisory note for £lOO and £250 had been presented for payment. Ho also produced the original promisory notes which were unstamped and not completed. The accused was unable to say why F. V. Wyllie’s ledger sheet should show the bills as being presented for payment. He admitted that such entries should not have been made in the ledger. Re-examined by his own counsel, the accused said Hannay did not always immediately hand on moneys received from clients on account of purchase moneys. He sometimes placed the money in his private banking account and paid the Tourist Motor Company by his own cheque In respect of the Hudson transaction, the entries in accused’s books were such as to lead the auditors to believe that the £5O deposit should have been received. “TED” WYLLIE’S EVIDENCE. The next witness for the defence was Frederick Valentine Wyllie, service-car driver, of Napier, who throughout the proceedings had been referred to as “Ted.” He gave evidence relating to his service operating between Napier and Gisborne, retiring from his service in 1927 and entering a garage business, when he was an agent to the Tourist Motor Company for Studebaker cars. In 1930 he filed in bankruptcy and towards the end of that year he took steps for a discharge While contemplating a discharge he entered into negotiations with Hannay for the purchase of two Studebaker cars, with a view to joining his brother in a service between Waikaremoana and Rotorua. In the transaction his brother Alex traded in a Hudson car for another vehicle. The price set on the Hudson by Hannay and witness was £l2O. Thus in September, 1930, the Tourist Motor Company became the owners of the Hudson.

Witness also purchased a Studebakersix car, Haunay conducting the deal. The deposit accepted on this car was a Dodge car owned by Mrs Wyllie traded in at a price of £lOO. While he was an undischarged bankrupt witness assisted the Tourist Motor Company by helping to open up the Gisborne territory, by introducing likely buyers to the company. For this he told Hannay that he considered himself entitled to some remuneration and the company gave him back the Dodge car. Winess and his brother continued on the Rotorua service, the Studebaker six car being destroyed on the road between Napier and Wairoa, after which they commenced activities on a New Plymouth run. Witness told Hannay of this and opened negotiations with him to buy a straight-eight Studebaker car. Witness saw the vehicle and considered it to be the best car of its kind that had ever come to New Zealand The price quoted for the car was £l5OO, and the deal subse quently went through in Len Wyllie’s name. A hire purchase arrangement was made, £5O cash found, £lOO cash got as a result of a transaction with Mrs Wyllie’s “baby” Austin and the balance of the deposit was made up by promissory notes, making the total deposit £5OO. THOUGHT PRICE TOO HIGH. When witness was talking to the accused Hyslop about the deal, he (witness) said he thought the price too high, but the accused asked him if he could do better elsewhere. Witness eventually came to the conclusion that he could not do better than to complete the transaction for £l5OO, with the deposit as stated and a number of promissory notes make up the balance This was therefore done. Witness went on to exnlain how business continued to be bad, as a result of which he told the accused to take back the car and hold it until such time as business improved and he (witness) was able to keep up the payments under the hire purchase agreement. This course wa adopted and the cai placed in llie Tourist Motor Company's garage at Hastings, where it was destroyed by fire. I Cross examined regarding the Stude-

baker-six sold for £303 13s 6d, witness denied that Hannay had offered him the vehicle for £203 14s 6d. If Hannay wrote to the Tourist Motor Company on December 16, 1930, stating that the car had been sold for £203 14s 6d, balooned for deposit to £303 13s 6d, then the letter was untrue. Questioned as to the meaning of the word '“balooned”, witness said he did not know. COUNSEL’S ADDRESS. This completed the case for the defence, when counsel proceeded to address the jury, stating that the charges against the accused were very grave ones. It was important that dishonesty should bo stopped, but on the other hand the allegations against the accused should not be believed unless the evidence was conclusive proof against him. The Crown’s case was that Hyslop had made false statements regarding ears with the object of defrauding the insurance companies. The crux of the ehaiges was the state of the accused’s mind at the time he signed the declaration. The Crown alleged that the accused had written deliberately false statements in order to obtain moneys to which he was not entitled. The declaration form had been made out by Mr Bisley—or rather with him in conjunction with Mr Mayne, his solicitor. The accused then signed the declaration, after which it was taken away. A few days later the police seized the company’s books. Hyslop had never been approached or questioned about there being anything wrong and counsel suggested that Bisley might easily have asked Hyslop whether he was sure that the matter contained in the declaration was correct.

Instead of this the paper was laid before the accused, who signed it thinking that the contents were true. The accused was perfectly honest when he stated that he did not know until after the books had been seized that ‘he £5O deposit had not been paid by annay on the Hudson car. It therefore could not be said that he knew that he was making a false statement by signing the declaration THE STUDEBAKER SIX. Regarding the Studebaker six car counsel said that this had been taken in for the sum of £256 and had been renovated, a considerable amount of money having been expended upon it. It was sold for £303. The Crown, however, said that the car was sold for £203. Counsel did not think that such a transaction would have been good business to have been carried out by such a firm. A Dodge car was given as part of the deposit and this was eventually given hack to the purchaser, Wyllie. There was nothing sinister about that and Wyllie could not be shaken in his evidence.

After being on the road for some time the Studebaker went over a bank and £l9O insurance collected on it, after a statement had been made by the accused regarding details of the purchase. The Crown alleged that such statements were made falsely and that the accused knew that they were incorrect, but this, counsel submitted, was not the case.

In regard to the purchase of the Studebaker nine he stated that it was admitted that the statements were made, but the accused had refused to sign a statement that the deposit had been paid in cash, insisting that details of the promissory notes be included. The Crown held that the declaration was false whereas the defence held that it was correct.

That car had been purchased by F. V. Wyllie for £l5OO and it was to his credit that ho did not complain of the high price. In regard to the term “ballooning” counsel submitted that the letters containing this term were never scon by the accused. There was no evidence that Hyslop knew of the “ballooning,” nor that he had assented to such a practice. In conclusion counsel appealed to the jury to consider well before they deprived Hyslop of his good name, or took him from his family on evidence heard in court which, he submitted, was by no means conclusive of his guilt.