Alleged Theft and False Pretences

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 173, 25 July 1935, Page 8

Alleged Theft and False Pretences

Traveller

WMsky

Tlie trial of John George Rutherford, ,i traveller, aged 45, on six charges of false ’pretences and two of theft, the commencement of which had been ad journed from the previous day because of a request by the defence for an*ad- ' journment, was started at the Palmer- ' s tou North Supreme Court yesterday, and when the Court adjourned for the ' day, the hearing of evidence had not been completed. 1 The charges alleged that accused, with intent to defraud, had obtained from Hughes and Cossar, Ltd., of Auckland, by falsely representing that he had obtained orders for wines and • spirits from six persons, certain sums oi money, and that he had stolen two * cases of assorted wines and a five-gal--1 lon jar of whisky, the property of Hughes and Cossar. The case for the Crown is being conducted by Mr. H. R. Cooper, while accused is represented by Mr. J. M. Gordon.

In evidence for the Crown Cyril Arthur Hughes, a director of the lirm

: of Hughes and Cossar, Ltd., said he had i known accused for 20 years. Accused had been employed by the firm, his engagement starting on January 16 last, to take orders for wines, spirits and tea. He was to bo credited with commission • on ail orders secured and on repeat orders from tho same persons. This - commission he could lift at any time. ' Ho had no authority to receive pay- , ments on behalf of the firm. Goods had ' been sent by rail to H. R. Gaisford ) (Marton) and R. Fraser (Takapau), but accused had no authority to lift them. Terms Not In Writing.

Cross-examined, witness said that the terms of accused's engagement had not been put-in writing. Under the arrangements made, accused was to be supplied with samples, up to an amount at the firm’s discretion, on a 50-50 basis. The profits on wine and spirits sales were to be shared equally Detween the firm and accused, but witness could not say what the arrangement was in regard to tea. Other witnesses, however, would testify to this. The firm had supplied Rutherford with a car, anu he had to supply benzine and oil and keep it in running order. Witness and his brother, out of their own pockets and not from the firm’s account, advanced accused £o each in January, accused saying that he had noth-

Witness described as ridiculous a suggestion that the relationship between Rutherford and the firm had been that of a partnership. William Herbert Gaisford, of Oringi, near Dannevirke, a farmer, said he had Known Rutherford for 15 years or more, but he had not at any time given accused an order for any goods. In March he had been advised by the railway authorities that there was a case of wine for him at tho station, and later he had received an invoice from Hughes and Cossar. Previously Rutherford had asked witness if ho wanted any champagne or wine, in view of the approaching wedding of witness’ daughter, but no order had been given to him. Witness wrote to Hughes and Cossar and repudiated liability. Frederick George Reynolds, of Matamata, farmer, deposed that accused, who was known to him personally, hau tried to get an order - from him last Christmas for whisky but witness haa jsaid that times were too hard. Nothing witness had said could have given accused the impression that whisky was to be sent to him. Later a two-gallon jar arrived at the Matamata railway station and witness received an invoice from Hughes and Cossar. He then wrote repudiating liability.

Known Rutherford for 20 Years. A denial that he had given Hughes and Cossar an order for wine, through accused or anyone else, was made by Henry Russell Gaisford, of Marton, sheep-farmer, who said that ho had known Rutherford for 20 years. Witness refused to take delivery of two cases of wine which arrived for him at the Marton railway station, and gave instructions for them to be returned to the consignors. The depositions at the lower Court hearing of . John Reginald Aitken, ox Alarton, railway gooas clerk, were read to the jury. In them he stated that two cases of Me had arrived at the Alarton station on Alarch 26 consigned to Air. H. R. Gaisford,.who had refused to take delivery of them. Rutherford had called on April 6 and taken the wine away.

Zillah Burnett, of Waipukurau, widow, said that she had known accused for 20 years. In February he had unsuccessfully tried to get her to give him an order for whisky or Wine. The nest month a case of mixed wine and whisky arrived from Auckland and owing to the fact that she was in bed with innuenza she kept it for a while. Y/hen an invo.ce arrived from Hughes and Cossar, the case was returned to them, with tue exception of one bottle of whisky.

Questioned by Mr. Gordon, w-itness said that accused had had a freo hand with her late husband, and if accused had been late coming to tho district, he would repeat the previous order. Had she known that the case which arrived in Alarch had come from Rutherford, she would have accepted it. , Re-examinea by Mr. Cooper, witness said it was six years since her husband’s death, but she had given Rutherford orders sinco then. Knew Nothing of Order. Samuel Henry Snell, of Palmerston North, butcher, said that a case of wine, addressed to “ W. Snell, butcher, Palmerston North,” had arrived at his house last March from a source that

Lengthy Evidence in Trial of

Alleged Orders For Wine and

was unknown at tho time. Later he had received an invoice from Hughes and Cossar. He had never given an order to be supplied with wine, and had never had any prior conversation with accused about it. When Hughes and Cossar’s invoice came to hand, he wrote to tho firm repudiating liability. He did not know of any other butchei in Palmerston North by tho name oi Snell. He had had business dealings with accused, but had not known las name prior to the present proceedings. George Knelling, of Palmerston North, outcher, said he had not ordered any w T inc from Hughes and Cossar. Tho lower Court depositions of Richard Alexander Fraser, of Takapau, farmer, were put in by consent. Deponent testified to a case of whisky having arrived for him, but no order had been given for it. He knew accused and might have accepted the whisky had it arrived a month later. David Hay, of Takapau, stationniaster, said evidence that a case of whisky had arrived in Marcn for Mr. R. A. Fraser, but the latter hau rerused to take delivery of it. Witness then notified Hughes and Cossar, who asked him to hold it for a few days, when instructions as to its disposal would be forwarded by them. On April 5 accused called at the station and took tho whisky away, signing the delivery note for it. To Mr. Gordon: No further instructions had come from Hughes and Cossai relative td tho whisky. Amount of Commissions. Charles James Edmonds, chief clerk for Hughes and Cossar, Ltd., stated that whisky and wine had been sent out by the firm on orders received from Rutherford, and he had been paid commission in accordance with the terms of his engagement. Subsequently a number of repudiations camo to hand from persons on whose behalf accused had sent orders, the goods being returned in some cases. Accused had received commissions, oither paid by tho firm in casn or placed to his credit, on goods supplied to Mrs. Burnett (£1 12s lOd), F. G. Reynolds (£1 6s 6d), W. Snell (16s 8d), R, A. Fraser (£1 17s 4d), W. H. Gaisford (£2 Os 8d) and H. R. Gaisford (£1 10s sd). These persons had repudiated liability and the goods supplied to them had been returned, except in tho case of R. A. Fraser and H. R. Gaisford.

Cross-examined, witness said that Rutherford had been supplied in April with a statement of tho position between him and the firm. This showed that his commission account was overdrawn by £3O os lOd. Rutherford had been debited with the commissions on the orders which were tho subject of the present proceedings. Accused had frequently made requests for advances against commissions, and had all these been complied with, he would have been three times further in tho firm’s debt.

Haying that Rutherford had been debited by Hughes and Cossar with the amounts of the commissions on the disputed orders, after originally receiving credit for them, Mr. Gordon suggested that the case .should never havo been brought. Cross-examined further, the witness Edmonds denied that Rutherford’s bankruptcy had resulted ia tho firm crediting him with commission on forward orders. Position of Account.

Asked by Hon. Mr. Justico Blair what bearing his questions had on the case, Mr. Gordon said the position of the account between Rutherford and the firm had a bearing on tho charges. His Honour: It might havo on the theft charges, but not on the false pretences charges.

Air. Gordon said Rutherford claimed he was in credit and not owing money to the firm.

‘‘lf a firm owes a man £1000,” said his Honour, * ‘ he would not bo entitled to get his money out of them by theft or false pretences.” To a question by the jury, witness said it was tho practice of Hughes and Cossar to accept orders without the purchaser’s signature. It was frequently hard to get the signature.

Witness told the Crown Prosecutor that tho firm had written to Rutherford asking him to get the purchaser’s signature in every case.

Detective’s Evidence. Edward Barling, of Palmerston North, detective, gave evidence that he had gone to accused’s flat m Palmerston North on June 3 and there he had found an empty whisky jar and two cases of wine, ono empty. Accused identified the jar as ono which had been sent to Air. Eraser and the two cases as having been sent to Air. H. R. Gaisford. Accused admitted uplifting tin. goods, saying that ho wished to save •Hughes and Cossar storage charges. He admitted having consumed the whisky and one case of wine, saying that he had used them as ‘‘travellers’ samples.” Accused was questioned regarding the order for Mr. Reynolds and made a statement, which was taken down on a typewriter. Accused read it and. said it was correct, but refused to sign it. Ho claimed that Mr. Reynolds had given him an order. Witness showed Rutherford complaints in regard to the other orders, but accused refused to make a statement, beyond saying that he was entitled to the money he had received and that ho h;ad a good explanation.

This closed tho case for tho Crown and after Mr. Gordon had briefly outlined the easo for the defence, he ca’led accused as a witness. Accused in the Box.

On oath, Rutherford said he had been

approached in November mst by Mr. Percy Hughes with a view to his joining the firm of Hughes and Cossar, Witness was asked to put his views in writing and did so, but these were not acceptable to the firm. However, in January of this year, witness came to an agreement with tho firm whereunder he was to act as their representative and agent on the basis of 50 per cent, of the profit on all goods he sold. He started off with £lO and a motor-car. Tho arrangement between them was not put in writing. In regard to samples there had been an understanding tha; he was to receive what he wanted, out when they did come to light, they were too small in quantity. In addition to the £lO he received at the start, he ootained sums of £5 on several occasions, but this was not enough for the work and expense involved. In April witness terminated his engagement with the firm over tho telephone.

Accused claimed that he had reeciv ed au order from Mr. Reynolds foi whisky, being told to have it delivered at the end of March. At least that was how witness took it. Consequently he sent the order in to the firm. Jle had approached Mr. W. H. Gaisford about wines for his daughter’s wedding and there had been some difficulty in decid ing whether still or sparkling wines should bo sent. After several talks with Mr. Gaisford, witness had to wire his principals telling them to substitute champagne for the still wines ordered. However, Hughes and CdSsar sent still wines and this spoilt a good sale. A Telephoned Order.

He had received an order over the telephone for a dozen bottles of wine to be sent to Mr. Snell, and as witness had previously done business with him he did not doubt that the order was other than genuine, and sent it ou to Hughes and Cossar. When Mi. Snell repudiated liability, witness saw him and was satisfied that it was not him who had given the order.

Witness said that Airs. Burnett had given him an order for a case, to be delivered at the end of June, but it had been delivered earlier through a misunderstanding. There was no intention of defrauding Hughes and Cossar of the commission on this. From Mr. Fraser he had received an order for a jar of whisky in three months' time, but Hughes and Cossar had delivered this prematurely. When Air. Fraser refused to accept delivery, witness picked tho jar up, believing that it would be safer in his possession than with the railway; also that he might be able to get rid of i? to another client. However, he was not able to dispose of it and had used it as ‘‘travellers’ samples,” this being in tho interests o. tho firm’s business. Naturally lie had consumed some of it when giving prospective customers a drink. Regarding Air. H. R. Gaisford, accused said that he had received what he had been taken to be an order, over tho telephone. Ho had done business with Mr.. Gaisford for many 3-ears. Tho order was sent on to Hughes and Cossar in tho usual way. When he learned that Air. Gaisford had refused to accept deliver, witness uplifted the cases from the station, thinking he might be able to dispose of the wine elsewhere. Of tho two cases, one was subsequently used as ‘ ‘ travelers ’ samples.” Prior to the incidents which were the subject of the present charges, he had picked up cases and sold tuem elsewhere, and at other times had used the contents as samples, 110 objection being taken to this. He had previously worked for Hughes and Cossar. Tho Court then adjourned till this morning.