CHARGES OF FRAUD

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 282, 12 November 1936, Page 11

CHARGES OF FRAUD

Competition with Motor Car as Prize THREE MEN IN COURT (Bv Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 11. False pretences in the conduct of a competition for which a motor-car was offered as a prize were alleged in the Magistrate’s Court against Harold Fairchild Pobar, an agent, Bertram Egley, a company secretary, and Hannath Noel Blake Marshall, a company director. Five charges were made against them jointly. The principal charge was that between July 16, 1935, and March 31, 1936, the defendants conspired with each other in Wellington and other places to defraud such persons as should be induced to purchase tickets in a skill test competition by falsely representing that a car was available as a prizewithout disclosing the fact that the car was subject to an instrument by way of security securing the principal sum of £450 and by falsely representing that the car was new and being kept sealed. There were four other charges that the defendants, by the same false pretences, pbtaiped from John Leith l/-„ from John Johnston Henderson sixpence on two occasions and from Henry Gastein sums totalling £l. Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., was on the Bench. Douglas Aubrey Park, clerk of the Supreme Court office, produced an instrument by way of security registered in August, 1935, granted by Edward Jones to. Guarantors, Ltd., and affecting a car with engine number WF 7191. No satisfaction had yet been registered on that security.

DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS. Victor Milton Simpson, chairman of the board of control of the Welljngtn Rugby League, said that in July, 1935, Pobar and Blake suggested to him a skill competition, the net proceeds to be donated to the Wellington Rugby League. The proposal was that the league should receive the net profits, and 7} per cent of all gross sales was to bo banked to the credit of the league. If was agreed that Pobar and Blake were each to receive £4 a week

as wages, plus all expenses, and finally a bonus of 15 per cent of the profits. The competition was to compute how long the engine of the prize car would rup on 18 gallons of petrol under certain given set conditions Witness communicated with National Motors, Ltd,, and saw the defendant Marshall, who showed him what he understood was a receipt for the prize car, which Pobar said had been paid for in cash. Marshall gave an undertaking for National Motors that the car would be sealed and held in safe custody ,by the firm until the final test. It was also arranged that the Rugby League’s auditor should inspect the i books and keep the League informed I of the position. After getting legal advice that the test did not contravene the law, the League agreed to the competition. It had received £42 11/- from it. Witness informed Pobar that the position was unsatisfactory and asked him for more money. Pobar said that the expenses had been much higher than anticipated, in addition to which, he said, he had difficulty with his partner and the canvassers and was not in a position to pay further moneys. When the date for the final test arrived witness expected National Motors to hold it. When he found that the test did not take place the league dissociated itself from the whole business. Later he saw an advertisement extending the date, and still later another in which National Motors dissociated themselves from the competition. Witness became concerned about the delivery of the car. Pobar said that the expenses had been such that he was unable to find the necessary money to carry out the final test. Witness insisted on the test going on and gave Pobar approximately £lO for it. Witness was not present at the final test. Pobar said he had found the winner in Wellington and had come to an amicable arrangement with the winner over the fact that the car was subject to a bill of sale, That was in March. Witness had been informed of the bill of sale in February by Egley but did not know till just before the test that the car had been unsealed and in use. Had he known of the bill of sale he would not have agreed to the proposal. PARTNER’S EVIDENCE.

Kenneth James Blake gave evidence of selling tickets in the competition with Pobar in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. In Christchurch they had with them the prize car, but it was not run in Auckland; witness borrowed the car from the agents. Pobar camp to Auckland in the car, which he said he had brought as a demonstrator. Tiat car was later used for demonstration in Auckland, Hamilton and New Plymouth. Before the dissolution of the partnership between him and Pobar witness did not know that was the prize car. He was not sure of it now. He was not aware up to the dissolution of partnership that the seals on the prize car had been broken. At New Plymouth the car was seized by Marshall, who said that the payments had not been kept up. Pobar suggested dissolving partnership, giving as his reason witness’s failure to keep in touch with the office. Witness later agreed to dissolve the partnership and a deed was drawn up and signed. After November, 1935, witness’s only connection with the competition was as an agent. Andrew Robertson Grimwood, director of Guarantors, Ltd., said that his firm seized the car before the final test. It was therefore not available to the winner unless he paid off the bill of sale. Further. witnesses gave evidence dealing mainly with the accused’s financial transactions. Ten witnesses were heard to-day and 15 remain to be called when the hearing continues tomorrow.