BUILDING FRAUDS.

New Zealand Herald, 23 May 1921, Page 6

BUILDING FRAUDS.

GAOL FOR THREE f YEARS'. A ONE-MAN SYNDICATE. DEPOSITS BUT NO HOUSES. [BT TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] WELLINGTON, Saturday A sentence of three years' imprisonment was imposed on Thomas Keen Cockburn, who was found guilty of obtaining money with intent to defraud. Cockburn, who styled himself the manager and secretary of the Terabidoc Building Syndicate, had obtained several considerable sums of money on 'a false representation that he was the .owner of timbes and sawmills at Dannevirke. f Evidence was given by Minnie Dawson, who said she paid deposits amounting to £50, and had no bouse built for her, E. I. Parrington (deposit of £150 and no house), Arthur George Keif (£IOO and ho house), and Robert David McGillivray, who had paid various deposits to Whyte and Sons, land agents, on the understanding that the accused would commence building for him. Robert Whyte, of the firm of Whyte and said he had' understood the syndicate was financially strong. He had made an arrangement with accused whereby he would accept a deposit and then refer the prospective buyer to Cockburn, who would arrange tor the balance. Mr. Macassey said there was no suggestion that the firm of Whyte and Sons had acted in any other than a perfectly honest and straightforward manner. The accused, giving evidence, said that originally he was an accountant, but commenced business as a builder in December, 1919. There was great difficulty in ' obtaining supphes in 1920. He detailed negotiations for the or renting of the mill at Dannevirke, and said that had he got the mill be would have no difficulty in meeting the several contracts he had undertaken.. Under cross-examination, he said the original syndicate had turned the mill proposition down, but be had not then seen the mill, and later favoured the purchase and wished to re-form the syndicate as tbe Terabidoc Building Syndicate, Limited. He had only. £20 or £30 in cash , himself, but was negotiating to raise the necessary capital by the forming of a company. He mentioned several persons interested in the company. The Crown ProsecutorT- Mr. Macassey, maintained that accused had had no in- .. terest in the mill when he entered into the building contracts in question, to whjch accused replied that negotiations were pending all that time, but he could not get a deflnite answer. " The position is," said Mr. Macassey, "that you have received something like £700 from these there are others as well—and you have not put up a single stick timber on a single property, and yet you have spent all the money . you have received." Witness said he had not received £700, and, in any case, the drawing-up of plans, etc. t had to be paid for. " Why did you not put those monpys .into a trust account ? You have &*W paying rent, .advertising, insurance, End ordinary office expenses out of those deposits. The expenses had nothing to do with building," In addressing the jury, Mr. Scott said that Cockburn had, perhaps, acted unwisely, but he had not acted criminally. His system would have been a good cue, had it been workable, but since the outbreak of war all builders had been greatly hampered by the difficulty of obtaining • supplies, and therefore there was nothing ; sinister in Cockburn's inability to com- ' plete-bis contracts on time,. .