DISHONOURED CHEQUES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8062, 1 October 1887, Page 6

DISHONOURED CHEQUES.

At the Police Court yesterday, before Messrs. Smith and Stevenson, Justices, George Mason, otherwise Richard Bingham Mason, on remand, was charged with obtaining by a false pretence—So wit, by giving a cheque for £6, signed by 0. E. Madden, to Win. Chas. Soar, saying it was all right—the sum of £5 12s (14, and a pair of boots, valued at 7s 6i, with intent to cheat and defraud. Mr. W. Dignan appeared for aocusod, and Mr. H. Williamson prosecuted. The latter stated the facts of the case, and stated that the gist of. the charge was in the intention of the prisoner' in tendering the oheque. He wonld show that pri souer knew that the cheque was of no value, as he was aware that Mr. Madden was not in funds. Wm. Charles Soar, boot-« maker, Newton, was called, and said that ho had known accused for a couple of years. On the 11th August he came to witness* shop in the evening with two small boys. He (rot a pair of boots for one of them, which we re put on by the boy, whom accused stated was Mr. Madden's son. He then tendered witness a cheque for £6, signed by Chas. E. Maiden, in payment. Witness hesitated before he cashed it, but a,caused said, " Don't be frightened, Mr. Soar, it is all right." He also seated that he wished it was drawn for £20. Witness then gave accused the change, £5 12a 6d. Next day he went to the Onion Bank of Australia to get the cheque cashed. He presented it to Mr. Ferguson,' the ledger-keeper, bat it was returned "Refer to drawer." On the 12th inst. ha saw accused in Queen-street, and spoke to him about the cheque. Mason in-< sisted that the cheque was all right, as he knew Madden had banked £200 a few days previously. Witness presented the cheque again, with the same result as before. It had not been paid since. By Mr Dignan : He had obtained judgment against Mr. Madden for the amount of the cheque in the JR. M. Court, and had a summons for recovery issued. After he saw accused on 12th' he had met Madden, and agreed to hold the oheque over for a day or two. Accused had told him that Madden's mother had left him money. He had supplied" Madden with boots on a previous occasion, and had been paid. He had heard that Madden had come into money prior to the sale of the boots,- and that ho was a solicitor of the : Supreme Court. He would not have given the boots unless Mason had said the cheque was good. He took criminal proceedings because he knew accused to be guilty of several mean acts. By the Bench : If the oheque had been given to him by Mr. Madden, he would have cashed it. By Mr. Williamson : He had not known of the* " mean acts" referred to before the sale of the boots. , James Rae, pawnbroker, Elliott-street, wits the next witness callsd. He stated that on the 6th August accused came to his place of business and presented a cheque for £6, and said "Give me a fiver till Tuesday for that." Tho cheque was signed Chas. E. Madden. Witness refused, saying that the cheque would not be any good. Accused said that Mr. Madden had £400 coming to him, but ihe deeds were not quite finished, but would bo all right by Tuesday for certain. He said the money was in property in Hobsonstreet, which Madden was mortgaging. Witness asked if accused were curtain of this, tie replied, "I am his olerk, a ad have been with him for several years in the VVaikato, and know all his business." Witness said that under these circumstances he would take the cheque. He did so, and gave accused the money. He presented the cheque on Wednesday, 10th of August, but received a verbal answer " Refer to drawer." He did not hand the cheque on Tuesday, because he met accused, who asked him to hold it over till just before three o'olook the the next day, as the deeds were not quite finished. By Mr. Dignan : He did not see any butts of cheques in accused's possession when he got the cheque. He knew that old Mr. Madden had left; come property in Bobson«Btreet. He did not speak about the value of the property. He would not have cashed the cheque unless Mason had made the representations he did about the property. He gave accused £5 for the £6 cheque. He did not deduct 10* 81 for a coat of Mr. Madden's; at least he did not think so. He did not ask Mason any questions about the property. Hugh W. Ferguson, ledgerkeeper in the Union Bank, stated that the cheque (produced) wis presented at the Bank on the lith of August, by Mr, Soar. There were not sufficient funds to meet it only 7s 51 being to the credit of the account. He returned it to Soar, telling him to refer to drawer. The second oheque (produced) was that presented by Mr. Rao on the 10th of August. The answer was the same as to Soar for the name reason. By Mr. Dignan: Mr. Madden had opened an aooount on the 15th of July to about £130. This money was drawn out by several cheques, perhaps 15 or 20. James Hawkins, licensee of the Queen's Hotel, Symonds-street, rcmombered the accused Mason, coming into the hotel on the 13th August last. He asked for a gUs» of beer, which he got and paid for'. He then asked wituess to cash a small oheque. Witness said he had not enough change to spare, but after some persuasion he did so. The amount was 30s, and the oheque was signed by Charles E. Madden. Witness got accused to indorse the cheque. He said it was all right, and that he would not bring it if it worn not so. He said that Madden's mother had died, and that he had come into the property, and that he had any amount of funds. Witness paid the cheque into his account at the National Bink on the 15th August, but it was returned to him. By Mr. Digian : Ha did not know Ma iden or anything about htm previously to seeing Mason, He thought the cheque would be met when he took it. He had subsequently handed it to a Mr. Mollboue. He had had no conversation concerning the holding over of the cheque for a day or two. Edward John. Dawes, proprietor of the Park Boardiuglaouse, stated chat tho accused, Mason, had lodged at his house for a few days, about the 28th August. There was a balance of 9a, owing "to witness . by tho accused. and he tendered him the cheque for £3 10», produced in payment. It was signed Chas: IS. Madden. Witness asked accused who the drawer was, and was informed that he was a solicitor in town, who had sold some property for him (Mason), and the cheque was given him on account. Accused said there was a considerable amount of money coming to him when the deeds wer* signed. Mason also said that he was going to the Waikato, where he resided that morning. Mason endorsed the cheque at witness's request. Witness then took it, and gave the accused £3 Is change. He afterwards took it to the bank, but it was returned to him. It has not been paid since. He would not have cashed the cheque had it not been for the representations made by Mason. He did not offer to oash the cheque the evening previous. Daniel Faulkner Evans»was then called, and stated that on the 24th of August he put up for sale a property in liobson-street for Mr. Madden. It realised £830. He believed there were mortgages upon it, one for £600, and another of about £105. There was a charging order of about £53 also against it. He thought the property should have brought £1200. Mr. Madden only received £8 from wituess, the balance, £112s 10:1, going to Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond. His instructions to sell had beengiven about the 15 th of August. This was all the evidence adduced by the prosecution, though Mr. Madden nad been aubpseuaed for that side. Mr. Dignan remarked that he thought that Mr. Madden should be examined for tha prosecution, but Mr. Williamson declined to put him in the box. The former explained chat if he called Mr. Madden for his side it would be opening his defence, and he would wish, if his client were committed, to reserve it for tha upper Court. The Bench then, on Mr, Diguan's suggestion, put Mr. Madden in the box, and he stated that he had given the four cheques produced to Mason, telling him that he had only a small account in the bank. He had a reasonable hope when he drew them that he would be able to meet them. He anticipated getting £250 on mortgage on his property, wliioh would have placed him in funds. He would have done so but for the action of a creditor, Mr. Hanchard, who got a judgment against him, and forced him to sell the property at less than its value. He wished it to be known through Mason that he was getting the loan arranged, and that as soon as it was arranged he would pay the money into the bank. He told Mason to get those who cashed the ofaeques to hold j them over till the money was paid in. I If time had been given him by Hanchard he ! could have raised £250. Hfe had a valuation of his property by Vaile and Douglas at j £1600. He had received the greater portion | of the casn from the cheques. By Mr. Williamson: The oneque dinted 2!) th of I August was drawn subsequent to the date of ' the sale of the property. He thought it

would be met because he expected a much f larger balance than he got. He had made no arrangement with the banks to honor his cheques, or to grant an overdraft. Mason 1 knew when he gave the cheques that witness 1 had not sufficient money to meet them. He I was not aware of having isuued other ) cheques about the same time. That produced for £4 on the 27th August was his. Mr. Williamson pointed out that if the money were obtained by false pretences, the intention to pay back did not a,vail. The Bench considered that the case, a* made out by the prosecution, • was not sufficiently strong to prove any fraudulent intention on the part of prisoner, and they therefore discharged the prisoner. Two similar charges against Mason were then" withdrawn.