FRAUD CHARGES DENIED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22099, 3 May 1935, Page 14

FRAUD CHARGES DENIED

SECURITY FOR MONEY OV/NERSHIP OF COSTUMES ONE INFORMATION DISMISSED Two charges of fnlse pretences against Arthur Bertram Taylor (Mr. Fraer) were heard in the Police Court yesterday. Accused, who appeared on summons, was charged that on December 28, with intent to defraud, lie obtained from I?ichard Corten £4O by falsely representing that he was the owner of about 90 frocks, that he had a branch shop, and that ho had an agreement for fin an re up to £SOOO. 'lhe second charge was that on January 2-1 he obtained £.*{s from William Matthews by falsely representing that lie was the owner of about 50 costumes. Accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. The complainant Corten said he was a salesman, at present unemployed. Some time in December he noticed an advertisement inviting applications for a branch managership of a shop on wages and commission, the applicant to advance £3O or £SO to purchase stock. Witness replied to the advertisement and received from accused a letter offering £2 a week and 10 per cent commission on sales. Accused stated in it that he had an arrangement for finance up to £SOOO on hire-purchase goods. On December 28 witness met accused in his rooms. Accused showed him a stock of about 90 frocks and said they wero his, and that they would he security for the money witness was to invest. Sum of £4O Handed Over An agreement was drawn up, witness said, and he handed over £ 10. He was to work for four weeks with accused to learn the business, and was then to take over a branch shop. After about three weeks witness learned that accused had no other shops and that the frocks did not belong to him. "I asked accused to start another shop, but he said I would have to wait until the Hamilton agency was fixed up " witness continued. "I asked him for' my £4O and he said ho would get someone to take my place. Witness added that ho had since received *lt> 10s back, but was still owed LJ-i iUs, and £3 in arrears of wages. In reply to Mr. Fraer, witness denied that a rise of 10s in wages he had received had been given following his agreement to allow accused the continued use of his £4O. W ltness said he had received it because thero were no sales of drapery, and it was to make up for his consequent loss of commission. Witness admitted that when ho saw his solicitors and made airangenients with Taylor for the repayment of his money, he had made no allegation.! of fraud against Taylor. " Case Too Flimsy " Dealing with the second charge, William Matthews, an engineer's fitter, also unemployed, said that in response to an advertisement, requiring a handy man, with £35 to invest, he called on accused and after discussion agreed to hand over the money. He was given some material and was to work at his ! home on the manufacture of towel racks. He was to receive £2 a week wages and 25 per cent of the profits. He was not paid for his second week s work, and did not do any work after that. He had not got Ins money back, although he had received judgment by default for the sum of £4l. In his statement of claim in this action no had not made any allegations of fraud. Accused had indicated the stock in the shop as a security for his £35. The second charge was dismissed by I the magistrate, Mr. Wyvern Wilson ! who said the case was too flimsy to send I to the upper Court. Accused pleaded not guilty to the first and wa« committed to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being fixed at £ol , on accused's own recognisance.