DIN FOUND GUILTY

Northern Advocate, 26 October 1935, Page 11

DIN FOUND GUILTY

mother _acquitted AUCKLAND FRAUD, CASE remanded for sentence. I special to “Northern Advocate.”] 1 AUCKLAND, This Day. The story of the arrest of Laul Edward Din and his mother, Madeline Elizabeth Din, on August 3, in Wellington, and the recovery of cash and bank drafts representing a total sum of over £3OOO, was related by detectives in the Supreme Court yesterday, when the trial of the Dins was continued. ' Laul Din, a clerk, aged 23, is arraigned on three charges of forging withdrawal slips _pn the Post Office Savings Bank at Auckland and -also with obtaining the sums of £IBSO, £IBOO and £9OO by false pretences. Mrs Din is jointly charged with her son with obtaining £IBSO from the Post Office Savings Bank ~by means of a false pretence. Mr V. N. Hubble, and with him Mr Winter, appear for the Crown, Mr R. Moody and Mr Kingston represent Laul Din, and Mr G. P. Finlay appears for Mrs Din. , “Could Be- No Doubt.” . When'the evidence for the Crown had been concluded, Mr Hubble said the submission of the prosecution was that the forged withdrawal slips never went through the ledger system of the P.O. Savings Bank, although they seemed to have done so. The Crown said that Din understood the system, and the forged initials he knew to be those of ledger clerks. There had been some attempt to sidetrack the jury on the issues, said Mr Hubble, but it was not to be thought the case relied on the handwriting evidence. There could be no doubt concerning the forgeries, the question being who was responsible. Mr Hubble said there were numerous circumstances involving Din, including his use of false names, his preparation to leave New Zealand, and his possession of certain bank Tiotes. The allegation against the mother contained no suggestion that she forged the documents. It was for the jury to say whether her explanation of her actions could be believed. For The Defence. Mr Moody, in putting the case for the defence, told the: jury that the charges relating to £IBOO arid £9OO rested solely on the evidence of the handwriting experts, persons who were not regarded by any court or judge with the greatest favour. : The charge concerning £IBSO was in a rather different category, but the real case against the young inan rested on the opportunity he had of coriimitting the frauds if he had been so minded. Out of 16 men in an office Din was the only one who could have done so. On behalf of Mrs Din, Mr Finlay pointed out to the jury the requirement in proving a charge of fraud.: “The Crown’s attitude in this respect,” said Mr Fihlay, “is very much that of a man who throws'a hat into a ring in the hope that someone will pick it Up.' I ask you to say, that, whatever you think of Din, his mother is a de- , cent woman.” .fudge Sums Up. Mr Justice Fair, in summing up, dealt separately with each charge, and said that certain facts had been practically admitted. The allegations of the Crown were that in March last Din was in poor circumstances, and that he then had the opportunity of gaining knowledge to carry out the frauds. The first offence involved £IBOO. Subsequently, Din lodged

£I6OO in a brink under a. different name. The second forgery was three months later, in July, the amount be- j ing £9OO. There was no evidence concerning the person who cashed the cheque. Within a few ,days Din bought two steamer tickets, resigned from the staff of the office, and bought in, Wellington drafts on banks in Sydney for £SOO and £3OO. So far. as the third charge involving £IBSO was ‘ concerned, there was the evidence of certain bank notes found in Din’s possession. 'Din had harided two sums of £SOO each to his mother, he had £7OO in his possession when arrested, and other sums were also traced. . Din and his mother had their passages booked to Australia in false names. Practically the only explana-

tion differed by Din was that he got the money from his father in the Chatham Islands, f Mr Justice Fair said that the Crown case against Mrs Diri was very slight. There could be no doubt that her association with her son gave cause for grave suspicion, but suspicion was not sufficient for the jury'to convict on. Din was found guilty on all counts. His mother was found not. guilty, and was discharged. Din was reriianded for sentence.