REX. V. CREQUER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 6 December 1927, Page 2

REX. V. CREQUER

After a retirement of 15 minutes.the Jury returned a true bill against Vincent James Crequer, who was then charged. - Mr Kemnitz represented the Crown; and Mr H. O’Leary (Wellington) with him /Mr Moynagh, appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty to all charges. The informations charged accused with the theft of the following sums of money: £4OO from C. R. 'Fell (involving, two charges); £llO from James/Baird; £330 from George Frederick Hingston; £250 from William Handcpejc Mackay; £250 from Henry Richard Duncan; £4OO from Robert Watson; and also £250 from James Baird.

The alleged thefts covered the period from" 12th May, 1927, to 4th October, 1927.

The following jury was called: J. Aitken (foreman), L. W. F. Hockey, A. Lammas, J. F. Stone, C. H. Woodward, G. W. Britt. JKhfcMitchener. W. 11. Newman, W. T. A. Kenning, A .Dickson, R. Bird.

Mr Kemnitz ordered ' four jurymen to stand down; and Mr O’Leary ’challenged live.' y - > All witnesses, were ordered out of Court on the application of Mr O’Leary. In opening the case for the Crown, counsel said the total amount involved was £1999. He wished the jury to disregard anything they had heard outside, listen to the evidence, and bring in their verdict accordingly. The section of the Crimes Act under which accused was charged was read and explained by counsel. The case for- the Crown, he said, would, be that the moneys wefe not loans, but were part of joint transactions. Mr Kemnitz went on to trace the nature of the evidence to be presented by the Crown, and explained that the two first informations were slightly different from flip others.

The evidence .was similar to that given in the Lower Court about a fortnight ago.

C. R. Fell, barrister and solicitor, was the first witness. He stated that accused came to him on 24th June last asking him to put up £4OO in a lumber venture, out of the profits from which lie (accused) promised to pay off an old debt of £4O which lie had owed witness for a number of years. Witness, after a good deal of pressure, and satisfying himself of accused’s statement, that lie had had similar dealings with Thomas Neale, eventually agreed to find £4OO. The receipt signed by accused stipulated that the money was to be paid to accused’s principals in America. A settlement was promised by Ist October, but this was not done, accused making various excuses. Eventually witness told accused he bad misapplied the money, which was denied. Witness pressed him to show him something to prove that the money had not been misapplied. Ultimately witness said he Avantcd either the goods or the money, but did not want accused to steal money from someone else to pay him. All the money witness had received out of the £4OO was £l5O.

To Mr O’Leary: He in conjunction with'other creditors, was responsible for launching the present proceedings. He had receive*}, a post-dated cheque from accused for £4BO, covering the £4OO loaned, £4O for the old debt, and £4O profit. He would call the business a joint venture. Accused came in voluntarily with the cheque some days after the business had been fixed up. The honouring of the cheque would have been the end of it so far as witness was concerned.

William T. Biggar, clerk in the National Bank, said that, on 24tli June lie cashed a cheque for £4OO drawn by C. R. Fell in favour of V. J. Crequer. John P. Ilayes, solicitor, stated that on 15lli .Tune accused gave him a cheque for £2lO, asking that it be held, over for a few days. Witness paid it in on 22nd June.-

To Mr O’Leary: He had had one or two previous dealings with accused. William Cole, motor cycle dealer, stated that £2OO was placed to his credit on 21th June by accused. On 27th April a cheque for £l3O was paid into his firm.

e. O. C'liallioK, clerk at the Union Bank of Australia, produced the bank pass book of accused’s, giving lodgements and withdrawals from 24th June to 7th November, when the account was closed. Since 24th June hist no drafts had been sold to accused for America.

Geo. F. Hingston, retired grocer, deposed that on Bth April he paid accused a cheque for £250 to purchase goods from America. Accused gave witness a cheque for 293 fis 8d to lie paid in August, which he got back on 15tli August. On 12tli May witness paid accused £330. which was to he sent to America for the purchase of goods. In

return accused signed 1 a receipt for £440, and a cheque for £4OO, the balance representing the profit. The cheque was dishonoured ,nml lie had received neither goods nor money. To Mr O’Leary: He had received some 100 eases of benzine from accused in July and 2 in November, fie sold the 100 cases for 12s Cd a case.

To his Honour: The proceeds of 100 cases would bo credited to accused. To Mr Kemnitz: The same day ho paid accused a cheque he (witness) received one for £243 ,0s Bd. The’ two eases of benzine be received had been charged to him by Montgomery. William 11. Mackay, wool and skin importer, said lie advanced accused £250 in October for the purchase of benzine, and received a signed agreement (produced) in which accused, promised to remit the money to America for 500 cases of motor spirit which was to lie the property of witness. Subsequently accused advised him that tile benzine had been sold in Wellington and gave him.a post-dated cheque for £312, which accused said represented the return from the benzine.

To Mr O’Leary: The post-dated cheque was dishonoured after being paid into liis account. IT. R. Duncan, brewer, stated that in 1922 accused came to him asking for a loan of £53, as lie was in difficulties. The Joan had not been repaid. During the last eighteen months accused had frequently asked him to advance money for the purchase of lumber, which witness refused. No security was offered. In August last accused told him be had paid off a debt, plus interest, which he had owed to Mr Neale, who had advanced money for the purchase of lumber from America, and had been able to pay him off, out of the profits. Accused also said lie had signed an agreement with Mr Fell on similar terms. Eventually, witness advanced £250 to accused for the purchase of motor spirit. He had received neither the motor spirit nor the money. To Mr O’Leary: He was not considering so much any profit to be made out of°tlie deal as 'to getting his loan repaid. Tlios. B. Lonisson, men’s outfitter, said that on 12th August accused paid him £250. Mr O’Leary: You are not holding any money of Croqner’s at the present time? * Witness: No, unfortunately (Laughter). To his Honour: The money was in repayment of loans and deals. To Mr Kemnitz: At tile present time accused was considerably indebted to him. (Left sitting)