COUNSEL’S OFFER

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 275, 20 October 1937, Page 15

COUNSEL’S OFFER

TO ASSIST PRISONER. NEW START IN LIFE. Unusual features were associated with a brief sitting of the Supreme Court, yesterday, when William j John McCrea, a salesman, aged 33, appeared before His Honour Mr Justice Smith for sentence as the outcome of being found guilty at his trial, this morning, on a charge of having obtained £3 5s from Walter Jalncs Vincent, on September 24, 1934, by means of a false pretence. Following an offer by prisoner’s counsel, Mr Hall Skelton, of Auckland, to exercise surveillance over him, iPhis release was granted on terms that ho come up for sentence if called upon within three or four years, accused was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within threo years. He is to pay 12s interest on the £3 5s within a week, and also the costs of the prosecution, £ll 14s lid, within 1 a year. | “I have seen the prisoner’s record, and I know that all those charges and convictions aro correct,” said Mr Hall Skelton. “Three of them arose out of ono transaction in 1926. Since then he has apparently had several further convictions'.” Not long ago, said Mr j Hall Skolton, accused, had come from , Australia and had said to counsel that he wanted to break away from all his old associates. Counsel did not know , why they did it, but quite a number of men camo to him in that way. Prisoner had said he “had finished with them” and wanted to “run straight.” Counsel had lent him £25, and prisoner had now practically paid for h:s car, and his warehousemen had been paid. He had not let the speaker down. Prisoner had kept absolutely straight while he had been under counsel’s direction, and it was most unfortunate that this prosecution had occurred. Prisoner had kept away from his old associates, was married with one child, and was living with his wife. It seemed that ho had made up his mind to break away from the old associations and he was now doing well. He was a good salesman and appeared to be turning the ability that ho had used in the wrong direction before to the right direction now. Prisoner was quite a likeable man, with very many fino qualities, and came from a good family, well-known in Wellington. He seemed to have become associated, in his younger days, with a “smart sot,” an Australian gang that had come over here. Counsel made an offer to keep in | touch with prisoner if the Court would j order him to come up for sentence if j called upon within a long period, say three or four years. Counsel would then undertake to watch his business affairs. He would take that risk. 1 His Honour, to prisoner: If I release ' you on this occasion, will you under- i take to go straight? i Prisoner: Yes, Your Honour. Proceeding, His Honour said ho had 1 looked through the prisoner’s previous r convictions and had noticed that there 1 were gape between them. In the or- t dinary course His Honour would have ( it open to him to sentence prisoner to 1 imprisonment for a considerable term i and could also admit him to probation, I while he could also convict him and t order him to come up for sentence if j called upon. In order to do ideal jus- c tico, prisoner should pay 12s ns in- t torest to Vincent, within a week, and t also the costs of the prosecution, £ll p 14s lid, within a year. Subject to these n conditions, His Honour ordered pris- t oner to come up for sentence if called t upon within a period of three years, d

THE EVIDENCE

GUILTY ON ONE CHARGE

McCrea was charged with tho theft, at Palmerston North on September 24. 1934, of £3 ss, the property of Wnlteh James Vincent; also that, with intent to defraud, lie obtained £3 5s from Vincent by falsely representing that he

was the holder of a cheque worth £25; and also that, by means of fraud, he incurred with Vincent a debt or liability for £3 ss. Mr H. R. Cooper (Crown solicitor)

conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr Hall Skelton, of Auckland, appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. The jury were empanelled as follow: —Messrs E. R. Chapman (foreman), A. E. Ekstcdt, J. H. Dalziel, C..R. Stevens, E. A. Christensen, S. Perigo, E. J. August, T. B. Beale, H. W. Lane, W. T. Jenkins, H. H. Palmer, and A. Egan. Evidence was given by W. J. Vincent, a returned soldier pensioner, that he met accused in an hotel in PalmerI ston North. They had a drink together and accused asked witness to I help him with his luggage irom his hotel to the railway station. Witness waited outside for accused, who camo out in a few minutes, stating that ho had a cheque for £25 which he could not get cashed, and asked for the loan of some money to pay his board. Accused did not show witness the cheque, hut witness .gave him £3 £s. Accused said ho would repay the amount as j soon as he got his cheque cashed “up tho town.” Accused re-entered the hotel, telling witness to wait while lie brought his luggage out, hut lie did not return. Witness, after waiting for 15 minutes, made inquiries and then went direct to the police. Witness had been paid tho amount on October 8 by Mr A. M. Ongley, who appeared for accused in the Magistrate’s Court. This was after the hearing of evidence there. Witness did not see accused for I three years until lie appeared before j the Court this montlj. Evidence was also given by A. H. Burt and A. Swan.

Detective-Sergeant Meiklejohn gave evidence that accused was arrested in Wanganui and, when tiie charge on the warrant was read to him at Palmerston North, said he had nothing to say, and engaged Mr Ongley to appear for him.

Detective J. Murray, of Wanganui, testified that, when interviewed, accused said he was not in Palmerston North in September 1934, and he had a perfect alibi in respect of the charge, as lie was in prison in Australia at that time. Accused said lie had been in Australia from 193 L until 1937, and was satisfied that a mistake had been made in his identity, still maintaining that he had not been in New Zealand during that period. Counsel for the defence, who called no evidence, said the three charges arose out of the one alleged incident. Complainant admitted having lent the money, so accused did not steal it. It 'was for the Crown to prove a false representation, and to prove that accused had not a cheque for £25 in his possession. This it had failed to do. Accused did not obtain credit by fraud, but obtained a loan, and again the Crown had failed to show that there was a false representation. Counsel submitted that tlicro was no case to answer.

Summing up, His Honour commented that accused had obtained the money on the statements ho had made to Vincent. This was the essential feature of the case, which was a plain one of a loan upon representations, and His Honour would direct tho jury that, if the case were proved, the money was lost not by theft, but by falso pretences. His Honour recommended the jury to disregard the first and third charges, finding accused not guilty on those, and paying particular attention to the second count—that of false pretences—which consisted of allegedly making a false statement, knowing it to ho untrue. It could not be' expected that the Crown should prove accused did not have a cheque, ns he wns not searched at the time, but. the circumstances had to be examined, and it had to bo considered whether accused did an unreasonable tiling in failing t-o appear after a quarter of an hour to make an explanation. There was no luggage produced, and evidence had been given by a barman that he had not been asked to cash a cheque. Accused had denied being in Palmerston North in September, 1934.

The jury retired, at 12.37 p.m. and returned at 12.50 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on the second count against accused, who was remanded until 2.15 p.m. for sentence when ho was ordered to come up for sentence within three years if called upon, his counsel having made an offer to look after him.