BRAND ON PAINT DRUMS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 12 June 1926, Page 11

BRAND ON PAINT DRUMS

ALLEGED FRAUD CHARGE AGAINST COMPANY MANAGER (United Press Ahboi iation.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 10. Tn the case in which Ernest Alfred Akins, manager of Andrew Lees, Ltd., oil and paint mercbanl.s, was charged that witili intent to defraud lie attempted to obtain £2 19s from Carl G. Johansen by falsely representing that two 281 b drums of Hartman's No. 2 Red {land paint were Hartman’s No. 1 paint, Carl O'. Johansen, painter and paperhanger, of Limvood, stated that he had been dealing with Andrew Lees, Ltd., tor 16 years. In October he ordered jcwt of Hart man's No. 1 Red Hand paint along with some other mxxls. He took delivery of the paint oiT 2nd October, but he bad not. examined it, as he thought everything was all right. A day or two later lie opened the paint. He had another drum of No. 1 paint, and when the drums were together he found that the new paint was more chocolate in tint and thinner in body 'Limn the other. He had received an account for £2 19s for the paint. Continuing, the witness, said that on the 11th of October be went to Andrew Lees tn pay bis account, and asked the accused d the firm hud altered its drums. The accused l»'ad said that this was not so, and took witness down to ,ue cellar where the paint was stored. Witness then told the accused that he had been "schlintered.” He had not since had any conversation with the accused about (lie matter. On the afternoon (J f the same day a carrier from Andrew Lees came to his house with a drum of No. 1 Red Hand paint, and asked if witness would exchange it tor the ones which he hail in his possession. He had never ordered No. 2 paint. He had not reported the matter to the Master Painters’ Association, nor had he handed the matter oyer to the police. IJ. J. Harrison, a traveller employed by Andrew Lees, Ltd., for the past' 12 years, said that by the brands on Jlie drums produced he could tell that they >eame from Andrew Lees, Ltd. The lettering on the drums looked strange. From their appearance he would think that they contained No. 2 paint. He had seen a paint remover used on tins in store. He had taken the No. 2 mark off some of the drums under accused s orders. That was about two years ago. He could not sav if anyone else had removed any numbers. 'The reason he had removed the number was that they were short of No. 1 paint at the time. He remembered an order for turpentine. There were two gallons of “new turpo,” an inferior grade, and two gallons of best turpentine, which he bad been told to mix together and seal up in an ordinary drum/ This was also done under the accused’s orders. He also remembered a contract for the Spreydon Scl 001, in which it- was stipu. lated that 21 cz glass should be used. Soane of the glass used was very thin, but it had been bought tor 21oz glass. He was not suggesting that the brands were taken off to defraud anyone"; the purpose was merely to distinguish it as their own paint. ‘ With regard to the glass, he did not know whether the thin glass was used purposely. - Mr Brown produced a statement made by Harrison to Detective-Sergeant J. B. Young, in which Harrison stated that during the whole time be bad been in the firm’s employ it had been the practice to remove the No. 2 brand and sell the drums as No. 1, and that this had been done in every instance upon instructions from the accused. Jack Francis Beecroft stated that lie had been employed at Andrew Lees, Ltd., about twelve months ago. He had been employed tor five years, and had been storeman tor part of that time. He bad seen Akins taking off brand No-. 2 by painting it over and putting on brand No. 1. He would do this when paint was going out on an order. Witness had seen this done on several occasions with a cardboard stencil reading No. 1. Akins had cut the stencil himself. This continued up to the time witness left the firm in 1924. To his knowledge nobody else had seen this done except one or two other employees. Not long after witness started work there, he was told by Akins to take out two gallons of turpentine from each of three cases containing two tins of turpentine apiece and to put in “new turpo” in its place. “New turpo” was inferior and cheaper than turpentine. This was done by punching a small hole under the cap of a tin and pouring part of the turpentine off, afterwards filling the tin with “new turpo.” | Mr Batchelov asked the Bench to | note his objection that the whole of the I evidence of the last witness was inaa. i missable.

To Mr Batchelor, witness admitted that he had a grudge against Alcins. He had told a few people that he would “get one back” on Akins. Charles Stanley Hewitt staled that he had been employed carting for Andrew Lees, Ltd. He had seen employees remove No. 2 from drums, but lie had never seen No. 1 put on. ITe had seen Akin’s son removing numbers, but lie had never seen the accused do so. There had been previous trouble over that kind of paint. ’ Under Harrison’s instructions he had removed numbers from drums. Mr Batchelor submitted that the case had not been proved. The Bench must bear in mind tlie relation of the witnesses to the accused, who had been manager for Andrew Lees, Ltd., for 20 years. The evidence placed before the Court did not prove that there had been any systematic fraudulent dealings. Throughout the proceedings the accused had acted as an honest man. They had the evidence of Beecroft and Hewitt, who had been discharged from the firm. One of these men had admitted that he boro a grudge against the accused. These drums might have been taken away and altered off the premises. The manufacturer’s number had been removed from tine drums, which would lie of no assistance to the accused, but would help anyone else who was trying to “work a scfilinter” on the accused. If these manufacturing numbers were on the drums the shipment could be traced. He submitted that, considering the possibilities of what might have happened, no jury would convict the accused. There were too many people wh|oi had an* opportunity of altering the numbers. Paint remover was used for a legitimate purpose. He suggested that, owing to the unsatisfactory evidence before the Court, the Bench should dismiss the case. The accused pleaded not guilty, reserved his defence, and was committed io the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was granted, self £IOO and one surety of £2OO.