“QUARTERLY DIVIDENEDS”

Northern Advocate, 16 November 1929, Page 5

“QUARTERLY DIVIDENEDS”

ALLURING PROSPECTS.

FALSE PRETENCES CHARGE

(Per Press Association.—Copyright.)

INI ERCARGILL, Thursday

In the Supreme Court today the hearing of six charges of obtaining money by false pretences against David Neilson Johnston, New Zealand representative of Quarterly Dividends, Limited, and National House Purchase, Limited, was begun before Mr Justice Ken nod a-.

Addressing the jury, the Grown Prosecutor said tin 1 companies were promoted in England by one William Taverner, who in 1928 had toured New Zealand, organising his companies in the Dominion. Accused had been appointed secretary for New Zealand, and had conducted an active campaign for depositors. The two companies were in reality one concern, operating ns tavo companies, but under the control of one man. The companies wen 1 small concerns Avitli few shareholders. He stressed the fact that the depositors did not hccoiwe shareholders, but merely deposited their money for investment, and bad no say in the control

or management

Money having been deposited, a series of "paper loans” Avere granted to depositors, until the £SOOO class was readied, when it avas stated that depositors Avonld be entitled to draw dividends on that amount for the rest of their lives. The dividends were also stated to he 20 per eent. The allegations against the accused were that he-had informed prospective depositors that by the payment of £2 Is and 15 monthly payments of £l, depositors would reach the £SOOO mark in 7J years. He Avould call the best actuarial evidence to slioav that the waiting period for a second loan of £SO would be 10 times the waiting period for the first loan, which the experience of Ncav Zealand depositors had indicated would be four years. The waiting period for the second loan would therefore be 40 rears, and so on down the list, the waiting period

automatically increasing. , The CroAvn Prosecutor revieAved the evidence at some length, and said that the Crown Avonld call evidence to slioav that the accused knew that the scheme Avas unsound, and had in fact been informed that it was unsound. Yet, in spite of this; he had carried on, trading on the faith that ignorant people were apt to place in a man who, on occasions, preached the Gospel.

Accused AA’as not an ignorant man. On the contrary, he was a man with a University education, and was no fool. It AA'ould not be necessary for the jury themselves to try to unravel the scheme, since the evidence for the CroAvn Avonld be given by the Government actuary, who Avould pronounce "the whole scheme unsound.” Evidence along the 1 lines of that given in the IoA\ r er ■ Court Avas heard, after which ths Court adjourned/

JURY DISAGREES. NEW TRIAL ORDERED. (Per Press Association. —CopyrlgM.l ‘ INVERCARGILL, This Day. The charges of false pretences against David Neilson Johnston wereresumed in the Supreme Court this morning. Summing up his Honour said before a verdict of guilty could be brought in, it was requisite that the following Miree essential ingredients of crime must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt:—(l)—That there Avas intention to defraud. (2) —That there was fact of false pretence and (3) —That money was obtained by means of false pretence. After four hours’ retirement, the jury returned to report disagreement ami a now trial was ordered.