VALUELESS CHEQUES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11110, 8 July 1899, Page 5

VALUELESS CHEQUES.

CHARGES of FRAUD. A WITNESS' STORY. At the Auckland Police Court yesterday, before His Worship Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., an elderly man named Frederick BradUy was charged that on Slay 19, with intent to defraud, be did obtain from Owen Pierce meat to the valuo of 4s 8d and £2 3s in cash by moans of a certain false pretence, to wit, a valueless cheque, and 011 June 19 did obtain £2 14s 9d from one Edward Qualtrough by moans of a valueless cheque, and also that on June 10 he did obtain £1 7s 6d from Charles Goodwin by false pretences.

Chief-Detective Grace conducted the prosecution, while Mr. J. R. Lundon app3ared for tho defence. Owen Pierce, a butoher, carrying on business in Ponsonby Road, deposed that on May 19 tiie accused came to bis shop, purchased como meat to tho valuo of 4s Bd, and tendered in payment a cheque for £2 7s 6d. The cheque (produced) was tho one tendered, and it purported to bo signed by one " E. R Syefi." Witness asked questions about the cheque, and the acoused said that "E. F. Syers" was a lady who resided at Onehunga, and had property in Auckland. Witness asked tho acoused to put his signature at tho back, and ho (accused) did. Witness then deducted the price of the meat from the cheque and gave the accused the balance in cash. Witness then sent the cheque to the Star Hotel (Newton). It was afterwards roturned by Mr. McLeod, the licensee of the hotel, to witness, who subsequently saw the accused and Mrs. Syers together. Both tho accused and Mrs. Syera at first denied having put their signatures to tho cheque. Witness then asked who was going to pay him, and tho accused said that if Mrs. Syers did not pay witness by Wednesday he would do so, and witness called on Wednesday at tho accused's office and received 30s from the accused. Cross-examined: Witness knew Mrs. Syers by sight, and knew that she resided at Onehunga. Before witness liandod the cheque over to tho police, he accepted 30s on account, finding out that the accused's representation was correct as regarded Mrs. Syres living at Onohunga and owning property there.

James MoLood, licensee of tho Star Hotel, Newton, was called to give evidence with a view to showing that the cheque was valueless. Edward Qualtrough, greengrocer, carrying on business at the corner of Symonds-street and Khyber Pass Road, deposed that the acoused bought goods at his shop, which were worth 15s 3d. A cheque for £2 10s was offered in payment, witness accepting it, and handing the balance in cash to the accused. Witness gave the cheque to Arthur Tooman and Co. to pay into their account at the lank. It was returned by the bank marked no account." When the accused came into the shop, he said, "If you will change this cheque for me I will give you an order, but as it is probably overdrawn I will sign my name to it." Cross-examined: The accused said witness need not be afraid of not getting his money. Witness said he would accept a cheque uf the accused's, and the accused said that it was not convenient for him to write one, but he would give witness an 1.0. U. The accused did not pay on the date mentioned in the 1.0. U., and witness subsequently handed the cheque over to the police, after receiving the accused's 1.0. U. The accused did nut owe witness any money at all now. The day following the one on which witness put the matter into the hands of the police the money was paid. Charles Goodwin, draper, Ponsonby Road, said the accused purchased some goods at liis shop. The accused offered a cheque in payment, purporting to be signed "E. E. Syers." The accused said he had received it from a tenant of his at Onehunga. The cheque witness subsequently found to be valueless, and he then handed it over to tho police Cross-examined: The accused said tenant, not "client."

Eleanor Florence Syers, a married woman, residing in Church-street, Onehunga, deposed that she knew the accused. He had tried to sell some property for her, but had not succeeded. Chief-Detective Grace: Have you an account at the National Bank? . Witness: I decline to answer the question. His Worship: What is your answer? You must answer.. Witness: I have none. Chief-Detective Grace: Have you one in the Bank of New Zealand? Witness: No, Chief-Detective Grace: Did you tell the prisoner you had one? Witness: I was expecting some money would be at the bank for me. Chief-Detective Grace: Are these your fignatures? (producing the cheques). Witness: I think so. Cliief-Det-ctive Grace: Are these cheques in , the . same state as when you signed your name?, . '• ,"■). Witness: No. His, Worship: Where, did yott.sign your name? •* •■■■■■•' _' vWitness: In Mr. Bradley's office. ' v His Worship: Where '• did you get the cheques?. :.V • _*;■.■ r_• . j Witness : I got them in the office. v. "His Worship: Mr. Grace is asking you if there was any other writing on the cheques when you signed them? " . Witness- I don't think so. - - His Worship: Can you not give some explanation? A lady does * not" sign cheques ; without • some- reason. ?;-..Can,: you not give some reason?, > -y_"" f s .* 1 •Witness: I was expecting some money would he at one of the banks for me.. • ' Chief-Detective Grace: Will you swear that. .you ham not signed 2fi—lCQ i cheques? ; . 1

Witness: I will. Chief-Detective Grace: Will you swe.it that you have not signed 80 ? Witness: I have certainly not. Chief-Detective Grace: Will you swear then, that you have not signed 50 ? ' Witness: I hope not. Chief-Detective Grace: You never hal an account at the Bank ? Witness No. Chief-Detective Grace: Why did you sign the cheques ? Witness: I was led to believe that a certain sum of money would be placed in the bank for me on a certain day. Chief-Detective Grace: Who by ? Witness: By an agent of mine. Chief-jJetective Grace: What was his name ? Witness: Shortland—a man named Shortland. -Detective Grace: Where does he live'/ Witness: I don't know. His Worship: Do you know how much money a clioquo will cover ? Witness: No. His Worship : It will cover as much money as yon like. His Worship: How much money were you expecting'! Witness: £100. Witness, continuing, said the accused told her that he wanted two small amounts. His Worship: What is your idea of a small amount ? Witness: My idea of a small amount is £1 10s. His Worship: His idea might be £30. People's ideas differ. His Worship: Would Bradley know when the money came ? Witness Yes. -Detective Grace: In what month did you get tile advice from the Union Bank of Australia telling you to stop writing your name to cheques '! Witness: In May. Chief-Detective Grace: Can you toll me how many you have signed since then ? Witness; I cannot. Chief-Detective Grace: What did you do with that lotter ? • Witness I sent it on to Mr. Bradley. Chief-Detective Grace: You then changed to the Bank of Now Zealand ? Witness: Yes.

Chief-Detectivo Grace: Can you not give mo sorao idea of how many times you wrote your name to cheques since receiving that letter ? Witness: I do not know that I have since then. Chief-Detective Grace: If there are other cheques then bearing the name of "E. F. Syres," are they yours ? Witness: I cannot say. Chief-Detective Grace: Have you any property at Onehunga 1 Witness: Yes. Chief-Detective Grace: How muoh ? Witness: One acre. Chief-Detective Grace: Was this the property for sale ? Witness: Yes. Chief-Dotective Grace: What is the mortgage ? Witness: £300. His Worship: Not much of a balance left. Witness said she would not part with the piece she had now for £500. Chief-Deteetivo Grace: Did you receive any money from Mr. Bradley for signing these cheques '! Witness: No. To Mr. Lundon: As a matter of fact she had found money since to pay some of the

cheques. His Worship: This money never came from Shortland at all ? Witness: No. In reply to the Bench, witness also said that when she had abandoned all hope of getting any money from Shortland she had told Bradley. She had always told Bradley how business matters had stood between her and Shortland. To Chief-Detective Grace: She had seen Shortland on Thursday, but not for some time before that. It was probably two or three months ago. At this stage of the proceedings, the case was adjourned till noon of Tuesday next. A number of other informations charging the accused with similar offences, have been laid against him.