FOUR CHARGES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 115, 12 April 1933, Page 8

FOUR CHARGES

ALLEGATION OF CONSPIRACY. STATEMENTS BY WITNESS. Four charges of conspiring to defraud were preferred against Edward Mountford Tunnioliffe, a showman and labourer, aged 45, when he appeared l>efore Messrs W. G. Ashworth and .1. T. Bosworth, J.P.’s, in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. The first charge was that on April 23, at Palmerston North, he conspired with certain persons unknown, by deceit, to defraud Jacob Ruttiman of £340. Similar charges were made against accused that, oil April 19, 1932, at Nelson, lie conspired to defraud Jacob Ruttiman of £100; that, on , April 19, 1932, at Nelson, he conspired to defrnud Ruttiman of £10; and that, on January 27, 1932, at Palmerston North, he conspired to defraud William Drysdalo of £IOO. Accused, for whom Mr O’Dea, of Hawera, appeared, pleaded not guilty. Senior-Detective Quirke stated that Ruttiman was a farmer from Normanby, who had travelled to Nelson with accused, on the representations of whom and another man Ruttiman had written out a cheque for £IOO on April 19, giving it to a man named “Scott. 1 ’ Later, ’at Palmerston North, witness had given accused a postal cheque for £7O, a cheque for £l5O and his own cheque for £l2O, making a total of £340. These were later cashed in Hawera by persons at present unknown. The handwriting of the two telegrams allegedly sent by accused from Blenheim to Wellington would l)e produced, and evidence would be given as to the identity of the writing, comparing it with the known writing of accused. Another allegation was made that Drysdalo had given accused a cheque for * £IOO drawn on a hank at Wairoa. This, accused’s companion, who had not been seen or heard of since, had cashed.

Arthur Thomas McSherry, supervisor of the telegraph office at Palmerston North, said lie had had 30 years’ experience in the handling of telegrams. He produced two dated April 28 and 29, 1932. These were originals handed in at Blenheim. The first was lodged at 12.47 p.m. and the second at 1.30 p.m. Evidence was giveii by Jacob Ruttiman that, on April 18, 1932, he was travelling to Wellington on the express from New Plymouth when he met accused. Accused offered him a paper to read and called witness over to his seat for comnany. A conversation developed about racing. Accused said he was a farmer with a big estate, and his brother and sister were with him. He said his name was Wallace, and he had sent a racehorse to Wellington that morning to race in Nelson. Asked the horse’s name, accused said it was not a Phar Lap, but still was a good horse. He introduced witness to an M.P. on the train and asked witness to accompany him to the races at Nelson, stating that he would “put him on to his horse.” Accused said he had made £2IOO with the same horse last year with the “books.” They proceeded to Nelson by the vessel Matangi, on which “Mr Wallaoe” introduced witness to his trainer, “Mr Davis,” and another man, “Scott,” who said he was a coalminer, but whom accused described as a bookmaker. Accused and witness occupied a cabin together on the boa.t. At Nelson accused asked witness if he had any money to put on the horse, and witness gave “Scott” a cheque for £IOO. Accused filled it in and witness signed it. Witness identified the cheque produced. 'Hie others, lie continued, said the horse was a “very sure thing.” Subsequently “Wallace” persuaded witness to give a cheque for another £lO on a double with Landmark and “Wallace s” horse for the second day of the Nelson races. “Wallace” stated that the hotel at which they were staying “was too flash for them,” so they went to •another where witness occupied a room with accused, who shi’wcd him a horse in a stable at tho back of the hotel, saying it was “Wallace’s” horse. Accused said “Keep quiet about the horse. Don’t say anything to anybody.” Two days later witness returned to Wellington, accompanied by “Wallace.” Accused told witness that if lie wanted to get some more money to invest on the horse, a friend named Frank would drive him to Hawera. When asked about the horse, accused said, “Leave it to me.” Accused agreed to go to Hawera and “Wallace” mentioned obtaining about £SOO as he was putting the same amount on his horse. Witness and Frank proceeded to Hawera, “Wallace” and “Scott” stopping en route at Wanganui. Next day witness withdrew £7O from the Post Office. Witness got a cheqiio for £l5O from Frank and endorsed it.

Witness added that they returned to Palmerston North where they met accused and “Scott.” “Wallace” told witness to remain with Frank and listen to the race result oyer the wireless. Two. or three minutes later “Wallace” came in and said, “Jacob, I am very sorry. Our money is lost.’ Then “Wallace” said.it was not lost, as they had any amount of chances to get it back again. Witness handed over the postal cheque for £7O to “Wallace” that day, also the cheque by Frank which witness had endorsed. They asked witness how much he had collected at Hawera, and he said about £4OO. He handed over his cheque book to “Wallace” who handed it to “Scott,” the latter filling it in for £l2O. Witness signed it, and gave it to “Scott.” Tlio whole amount o| £340 handed over by witness was to he put on “Wallace’s” horse at Blenheim. Subsequently accused said he had a friend in Napier who was “one of the biggest bookies in New Zealand,” and asked him to go to Napier with Frank. “Wallace” gave witness a letter, which at Napier he gave to Frank to deliver, but Frank said it was not ■ properly addressed and left it at the hotel. They paid a second visit to the hotel, and Frank came out with a letter addressed to “Wallace.” They returned to Palmerston North and saw accused. Witness went with the others to Wellington and there they parted company. Witness received a telegram from Blenheim signed, “It. Wallace” and stating, “That’s all right this qnd.” Later witness received another similar telegram asking him to meet accused at the Post Otfice, as lie had something for him. They met and accused informed witness flmt something had happened to the horse and it could not win. AVitness went home two days later. Subsequently, witness added, he met accused at the Wanganui races in the middle of May and toid him that his trustees wanted to know what he (witness) had done with the money. Accused said ‘.‘Well, I hope that you do not mention my name," and made an appointment for the following day at Palmerston North. Witness came, but did not see accused, who iiad given his address as “It. Wallace, Post Office, Palmerston North.” Witness- • wrote and received several letter (produced). Later witness identified accused from among 15 others at the New Plymouth police station.’ Cross-examined, witness snid he came from Switzerland to Now Zeaiand in 1913. He was unmarried, Counsel: Are you not quite wealthy

and worth £10,000?—Not as much as that. . Witness said h© could not say how much money he had out on losin. It was not anything like £6OOO. He did not want to take action against accused, and had not wanted to lay an information, but he denied that, the police had “pushed him into it. Counsel: Is it not the police who are coaxing you on in this action ?- -I always believed in “Wallace,” and expected to get my money back. Further cross-examined, witness said he supposed that either “Scott’ or “Wallace” had received the money. So far as he knew, it was handed over to “Scott,” but “Wallace” did the business. He had several times asked accused the name 'of bis horse, but had never been informed of it.

Proceedings were then adjourned until 2.15 p.m.