ALLEGATION OF FRAUD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19470, 28 October 1926, Page 12

ALLEGATION OF FRAUD.

FARMER PLACED ON TRIAL. BILL OF SALE TRANSACTION. ALLEGED DISPOSAL OF STOCK. The trial of Richard Walters, farmer, Waipu (Mr. McLiver), on two charges of fraud and four of false pretences, was commenced in the "Supreme Court yesterday. Tho charges were in connection with a property exchange in which Walters gave a bill of sale over his stock as security for j a bank guarantee from Percy Arthur Herman for £ISOO, latex increased to £ißoo. Mr, Pntorson, for the Crown, said accused had taken from Herman a property at Waipu in exchange for certain property equities which wore taken us part payment, and following the- deal Herman guaranteed accused's account at tho bank. Tho proceedings were taken under the Chattels Act and related to accused's dealings with tho transfer of certain stock, subject to a bill of sale given to Herman as security against his guarantee. Herman found thero were 235 sheep and head of cattlo iliort of the number named in tho bill of sale end it was discovered that accused had sold tho stock to certain persons in the locality. In two instancoa ii was alleged he had obtained money from purchasers of the stock by the false pretence that he had denied there was a bill of sale. The result was that the men who bought the stock had to adjust the matter with tho Bank of New Zealand when the existence of the security was disclosed. Percy Arthur Herman said he took a first mortgago for £4OOO on accused's property and also guaranteed accused's account at the Bank of New Zealand to tho extent of £ISOO, taking as security against that a bill of sale over all the live and dead stock on the place. The amount was subsequently increased to £IBOO, and in March, 1923. witness transferred the bill of salo to the hank. In August, 1924, accused left the property, and witness later mado the discovery that all the stock named in the bill of sale was not on the property. Mr. McLiver: You know the bill of sale includes the progeny of the ewes ?—Yes. Then accused had no right to sell anything on tho property ?—No, except the wool. In reply to further questions, witness said accused had many liabilities, but he was not pressed. No exception was taken to his disposing of lambs and culled stock, but it had been agreed he should not interfere with the ewes. The case was adjourned until this morning-