SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 195, 19 July 1939, Page 10

SUPREME COURT

SERIES OF CHARGES. SALES OF PRODUCE. Eighteen charges, twelve of which were under the Crimes Act, and six under the Auctioneers Act, wore preferred in the Supremo Court at Palmerston North, yesterday, before His Honour Mr Justice Blair and a jury of twelve, against John Richards, manager of an auctioneering firm, and Arthur Haines, auctioneer, both of whom pleaded not guilty to all counts. Mr H. R. Cooper, Crown solicitor, conducted the ease for tlie prosecution. Mr A. M. Ongley appeared for ltichards and Mr G. M. Crossley for Haines. The charges against the two accused were as follow: —That they conspired together to defraud, by fraudulent means, by rendering false account sales notes, divers persons on whoso behalf tho Dominion Auctioneering Company, Ltd., should receive produce for sale by auction. That being auctioneers they did, with intent to defraud, render an account to Asparagus, Ltd., of the proceeds of 40 cases of tomatoes sold by auction by them, knowing the same to be false in a material particular, the selling price of part ot the-property, 20 cases of tomatoes; similarly also in respect of eight cases of apples, eight half-cases of apples and thirteen cases of peaches sold on behalf of Aaron Tomlinson; also 17 eases of tomatoes on behalf of TV. H. Walker and Sons; also 16 cases of tomatoes on behalf of Wilson s Nurseries, Ltd. ; also 22 cases of tomatoes on behalf of Wilsons Nurseries, Ltd.; also 26 cases of Golden Queen peaches on behalf of Arthur Wi liters. That, having received £7 17s Id on terms requiring them to account for or pay the same to Aaron Tomlinson, they did fraudulently omit to do so in respect of a part thereof, 13s 9d thereby committing theft; similarly in'respect of 3s 6d, a part of £4 Is 6d received on behalf of W. H. Walker and Sons; also 7s 9d, a part of £3 19 s 9d received on behalf of Wilson’s Nurseries, Ltd.; also 2s 3d a part of £2 8s 3d received on behalf of Wilson’s Nurseries, Ltd.; also 4s 9d, a part of £6 2s 3d received on liehalf of Arthur Winters; also 4s 6d, a part of £5 8r 6d received on behalf of Stanley Cummins; also £ll 11s 4d part of divers sums of money totalling £203 12s 6d received on behalf of Stanley Cummins; also 9s, a part of £4 2s received on liehalf of Samuel Henry Baker; also £1 8s lid, a part of divers sums of money totalling £22 7s 8d received on behalf of Samuel Henry Baker; also £3 10s Gd, a part of £2O Is 3d received on behalf of Thomas William Russell; also £lO Is 4d, a part of £76 4s 3d received on behalf of Thomas William Russell. The jury wore empanelled as follow : —Messrs C. Cross (foreman), W. .T. Sievert, J. Warner, F. W. Gilbert! G. L. Horn, O. Rasmussen, A. 1> Pagan, G. E. Satchwell. J. Johansen N. W. Cooper, S. J. Cooper, W. A. Kelly.

Evidence by vendors of fruit or produce through the firm, of the prices realised, and those returned in the account sales notes included the testimony of Harold George Carr, secretary of Asparagus, Ltd (Hastings). Cross-examined by Mr Ongley (for Richards) witness said that when lie left tho sale which he attended at the D.A.C. there were 17 eases of tomatoes left unsold, and it was quite likely that the whole of tho consignment had not been sold when-telegraphic advice of prices was received the same day. Every case of fruit or vegetables in tho transactions with the D.A.C. was accounted for, and on no occasion was wit ness *jn formed that any was unsold or returned. George' Donald Wilson, managingdirector of Wilson’s Nurseries, Ltd. (Hastings), and a director of Asparagus, Ltd., gave evidence concerning prices realised for certain lines which ho had seen sold and had purchased himself at auction by the D.A.C., when lie attended the salerooms in company with the previous witness. Cross-examined by Mr Ongley, witness said that delivery had been given of a complete line of tomatoes except four cases which he bought. Ho actually did not see delivery taken, but the cases had gone. Witness said his firm had never had any debits for fruit not sold or that had gone had. His Honour said that, taking the assumption that several cases of a line were returned as unsatisfactory by the purchasers, that did not entitle the auctioneering firm to reduce to tho vendor tho prices realised for other cases in'the line. To his mind, that was still false pretences. Mr Ongley made tho submission that it made the auctioneering firm liable only civilly.

His Honour said he did not agree with that, and ho proposed to tell the jury quite differently. Any cases returned were the subject of a private little deal between the auctioneering firm and its clients, and had nothing to do with the growers. If it was the intent of counsel to suggest that it had, His Honour said lie would have to stop the questions. Mr Ongloy said his submission was that the vendors still were paid, and that it did not constitute theft. His Honour: It does not entitle the firm to say a lino realised 4s Gd when they got ss. Counsel said that it did not constitute theft, though it might bo a breach of the Auctioners Act. His Honour said that auctioneers were under an obligation to return the precise prices realised. Thomas William Russell, market gardener, of Ptikekohe, gave evidence concerning consignments of produce sold on his behalf by the D.A.O. Cross-examined by Mr Ongley, witness said that wastage seldom occurred when the produce was en route to the mart, but if it did, the auctioneers wore usually free to dispose of it to the best advantage. Nevertheless, it was their duty to notify the grower when this occurred. To Mr O. M. Crossley (for Haines) witness said lie was satisfied with the comparative prices received at the firm’s mart, or ho would have ceased to supply. He heard no complaints from the D.A.O. concerning the condition in which the produce arrived. Bertram George Goodwin, of Palmerston North, district supervisor of the Department of Agriculture, gave evidence concerning the registration of orchards, and distinguishing marks on cases of fruit. Proceedings were then adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.