FALSE PRETENCES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10269, 10 February 1894, Page 3

FALSE PRETENCES.

THE “YORKSHIRE POST ” SWINDLER. ‘ At the Christchurch Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Messrs R. Westenra and C, M. Gray, J.P.’s, William Richards, alias Richardson, was charged with having, on Jan. 22, unlawfully ana knowingly, by means of a valueless cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, obtained from John Edward Hanson the sum of £7 10a, with intent to defraud. Inspector Broham appeared to prosecute. ! Accused, who was undefended, pleaded guilty. He also pleaded guilty to charges of obtaining by means of valueless cheques, a silver chain and match-box value £2 17a Gd, from Albert Gunderson, on Jan. 27; £1 2s from John S. Jan. 27; £5 from Th&tnas Arrowsmith, on Jan. 29 j and £o from Nathan Jowett, on Feb. 2. > y Accused was further charged with having, on Jan. 23, unlawfully, by means bf a Certain false pretence, to wit, a valueless cheque, obtained from William Alexander M'Laren the sum of £ls,’with intent to defraud. William Alexander M’Laren, an engineer, carrying on business in St Asaph Street, deposed that he had known the accused lately. On Jan. 18 he came to witness and presented his card, saying that he had been sent out to New Zealand to write it up for ths -Yorkshire Post. Accused said ha intended calling ..upon the representatives of the Leeds firms fleet. He said he had waited on, Wood, Sband and Co., and had called on witness as he (witness) was known among the farmers. Accused said he wanted to know about the prospects of New Zealand farming generally. He said there were a great many inquiries in Leeds about New Zealand, and that he had been,.instructed'to write two columns of news a week for the Yorkshire Post ; also to bring before the notice of the public the representatives of Leeds firms. Accused asked witness for a blank cheque on the Bank of New Zealand. Witness gave him a Colonial Bank cheque. Did not give him a cheque that day. but on the following day (Jan. 19) he came to witness’s 7pffice-and said ha had spent all his ready money, but had a draft from Home on the? Bank of New Zealand. Accused further stated that, on presenting the draft'at the bank in Christ-, church, he ascertained that it was payable in Wellington. He asked witness to allow fiiin £5 till he got the money. Witness gave him a cheque for £5 on the Colonial bank. On Jan. 20 accused again came to witness and said he’had had a cable from Home. * Witness gave him £2 that" day. On Jan. 23 took accused to Kaiapoi, and showed him over the Kaiapoi Woollen Manufacturing Company’s mills, and intiodnced him to the Mayor of Kaiapoi and other Leeds men at the Kaiapoi Working Men’s Club. Accused borrowed 10s from witness that day. On Jan. 25 accused came to witness’s office and gave him a cheque for £ls on the Bank of New Zealand. Witness told accused that he did not owe him £ls. Accused'wished to give witness the cheque, as it would bo payable on the following Saturday, and witness gave 'accused a cheque for-£7 10s. Witness afterwards noticed thdt the cheque was dated Jan/29, and did not present it till that day. When witness took the cheque to the bank it was returned marked “ dishonoured ” and “ refer to drawer.” Spoke to accused on Jan. 29 about the cheque beinf, _ dishonoured ; accused apologised and said it was just through an oversight on his part, but assured witness that it would be all right if witness; presented it next day, as he (accused) had been to the bank and deposited a substantial amount to his credit. Presented the cheque to the Colonial Bank on Tuesday, Jan. 30, but it was returned marked “account closed.” Did not see accused after this till he was in custody. Believed that the man was honest, as he appeared to know all about the large firms in Leeds. Robert John Maxwell, teller at the Bank of New Zealand, deposed that accused came to the bank on Jan. 23 and saw the Assistant manager, who allowed him to open an account. Accused paid in £B. One of the cheques (£2) came in on the same day, and the other for £6 came in on Jan. 27; The whole amount accused deposited was drawn out on the same day. The produced was first marked, “refer to drawer,” and the second time it was presented it was marked “ account closed.” There was no record in the books of any draft having been left at the bank for accused.

Chief Detective O’Connor deposed that he arrested accused on the present charge on Feb. 2. Read the charge to accused, who said he could nob understand why Mr M’Laren had laid an information against him. Accused told witness that he came out by the Rimutaka, about nine months ago. Witness got a list of the passengers by the Rimutaka, and told accused that his name was. not in the list. Accused admitted that his name was not in the list, but said that he would find it at the shipping office. That morning accused told witness that he was in Christchurch nine years ago.

This was the case for the prosecution. Accused, who had nothing to say, was committed to take his : trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. Before sentence was passed on the other charges, accused asked their Worships to deal leniently with him. He deeply deplored the position he had been placed in. He daily expected a letter from his friends in England, and when he received it would be quite willing to make every reparation for ■ what he had done. He had received the correspondentship of the Yorkshire Post through his father, but had not been able to do much work, owing to suffering from a skin disease.

Mr Westenra said accused had just serye,d. a ; sentence . of . six. months’ imprisonment for a similar offence.' There could be no doubt --thkt accused had obtained money in these,cases' by means of valueless cheques. He would be, sentenced

to two months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each of the three first charges, and Six months’ imprisonment on each of the two £5 oases, the sentences to be (Cumulative.