MUSIC IN THE HOME

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7049, 10 February 1910, Page 7

MUSIC IN THE HOME

BUT DISCORD ELSEWHERE AGEXT SCATTERS PIANOS BROADCAST. AND IS 'INDICTED FOR FRAUD. Edward John 'Falkinor, telegraphist and piano dealer, mas yesterday ordered by Mr W. .G. Riddell, S.M.. to stand his trial at the Supreme Court on six charges of theft of pianos, six of receiving moneys (in' all £287) and fraudovrtly omitting to account for same to William'Henry Webbe, managing partner of the London and Berlin Piano Company. Auckland, whose agent ho alleged to he, and five counts of manufacturing bogus agreements) Thio hearing of (the chargee in the Lower Court was resumed shortly before noon and concluded just after 4 p.m. Chief Detective liroberg prosecuted, whilrt Jfi- Dunn appeared on behalf, of the accused. _

J. W. (Reade, cycle dealer (and agent , Manners street, concluded his evidence. Cross-examined by Mr Dunn hje admitted having told accused that, assuming his statements, to witness to be true ire (accused) oould. : sell or do. what he liked with the (pianos he held, and that ho could ■, not bo held responsible, to the (company for them unless ho was in receipt of a salary. Witness had said that test oases brought before the Court (had decided this. Witness might have told accused just before his arrart that ho had -(made a similar statement to Webbe’s lawyer. Hr Dunn; Did you say that Wohho probably couldn’t recover the pianos? Witness; I probably said he (would have some difficulty—Mhat there would be some tricky law points. I think there will be, too. ; Witness denied having asked to have Wobhc’s Wellington agency traps, ferred to him. If Webbo said wit. ness did make such n request he would not contradict him. He advised Webbe to doss the Wellington agency. When in Auckland witness, his suspicions having been .aroused by accused offering him a £7O piano for £3O, bad called at the head office and inquired Whether accused had power to sell. Witness might (have told Pearson that he would make it hot for Falkinor—that Was in consequences of Mr Dunn s scandalous charges against Webhe. Witness had Said that after those charges he had no further pity or mercy for accused and would tell all he knew. Witness had taken shorthand notes 'of the evidence in Court, but not for Webbe. Witness had received three guineas from the latter for services rendered since Ftolkiner’s arrest. Detective Lewis said that accused, on being (arrested, denied having stolen the pianos and asserted that It “was a bit of spleen.’ 1 He also said that ho (owned £IO,OOO worth of equities, and that Webbe. was very foolish as he (accused) could have paid him all the money. When summonses were served On him later accused said: “If d hadn’t made that statement to Reade he’d have had, a bigger job ■ tracing some of the pianos.” ' 1 Mr Dunn ..bmitted that the prose-, cution had not'discharged the onus of showing that the transactions were of a criminal mature at all. _ All depended on the terms on which goods were Xf the parties held the! relation of .buyer and seller merely there could he no criminal liability. Webbe bad said in his evidence that the pianos were not “<m sale or return.”

His Worship doubted whether: it was worth while goin£ rnho . that_ question u-t : that stage. Ho considered that a prim a facio case had boon established in all the oases save one—that relating to, a transaction with Mr Swan. ■, In that case, though there might he a suspicion, the evidence was so weak that if the cos© went to a jury ho was. satisfied there would ha no conviction. On the remaining charges aaoused would be committed to the Supreme Court for trial. The hearing of the remaining charges was then proceeded with. . It.was •agreed that they should ho taken together. James 0. P. Kirkwood deposed,to haring received a piano from accused in part payment of a debt duo for electrical fittings. Witness gave, accused credit for £52 • 10s, the total abnount dwingi being £59. _ Tho deal was a priocr arrangement, witness undertaking to take the piano . in order that he might get the contract for fittings.' '(AVitness produced a receipt for £52 IQs signed by accused). No mention of bailment or of any other person being interested in tho piano was made hy accused. ■ . Charles AV. Martin, Itichard Palling, Robert Pearson gave evidence relating to transactions of a more or less similar nature to that detailed by the witness Kirkwood. John S. Swan and J. W. Roade were re-sworn, and such part of thair evidence in • regard to the, first group of charges as was relevant to the present charges was accepted as having been re-stated. A similar course was followed in reglard to Wcbbc, who also supplemented his former evidence at some length. • Accused repeated his plea of not guilty, and on each of the pharges he was committed for trial. Bail Wate allowed in a sum of £2OO and two sureties of £IOO.