THE HOUSING PROBLEM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10868, 7 April 1921, Page 6

THE HOUSING PROBLEM

“ A BUILDING SYNDICATE ” CHARGE AGAINST THOMAS KEEN COOKBURN. FALSE PRETENCES ALLEGED. After numerous adjournment® the man Thomas Keen Cockburn was finally' disposed of in the Magistrate’s Court before Messrs I. W. Ellison, 1.P., and It Hanlon, *J.P., yesterday on serious charges of theft and false representation, he being committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Chief-Detective Ward appeared for 'the police and Mr J Scott for the accused. The charges against Cockburn, were that, on or about June 10th, he did obtain, from Edward I. Parrington, the sum of £l5O by falsely representing that lie i was the owner of timber, and sawmills at Dannevirke, and that on or about June 10th, 1920, he did' commit theft of £7O am money, the property ,of E. I. Parrington. Chief-Detective Ward, in prefacing the evidence, said that the accused had estabished himself a® a builder under thy name of the Terabidoc Building Syndicate sinoe early in 1920. He set himself up to build, houses cheaply and asked deposits ranging from £IOO to £l5O. He was actually the syndicate, and undertook to arrange and borrow from the start, taking a second mortgage himself for any balance owing. The evidence would show that no work of any kind had been effected and the accused bad thrived on the money tendered as deposits'. The modus operandi of tiie accused would also be explained. . A HOUSE AT NGAIO. Edward Ivan Parrington, dentist, said he knew the accused as the principal man in the Terabidoc Building Syndicate. Witness interviewed accused regarding the erection of a building at Ngaio. He had paid the sum of £2O on the section and there was a balance of £7O owing. Witness explained the position to accused. . Accused agreed to build a house for £1350 on condition that witness paid a deposit of £l5O. Witness paid this deposit and accused' wae to proceed immediately to erect the house. Accused was to take over the section and arrange the necessary mortgages. Accused was to have paid off the £7O due on the section out of the £l5O deposit paid to him by witness. The agreement was entered into on June 10th, 1020, when witness paid accused a cheque for £l5O. ' Plans and specifications were submitted to witness by accused, and were finally approved. Accused informed witness' that he had sawmills at Dannevirke and that was what decided witness to build through accused. A month later, when witness saw that nothing was being done .in the way of building, ho saw accused, who stated that he was busy building other houses and that he would get on with witness’s house as soon as possible. Some time later aoeused tqld witness that he had disposed of the saw mills for £3OOO and that he woud have to get timber from somewhere else. He told witness he would get on with the building at Ngaio as soon as possible, but -up to the present no attempt had been made to start .the building and no part of the £l5O paid accused had been refunded, and witness was Still liable for the £7O on the section as the accused did not pay that off as agreed. A,RING ON THE ’PHONE.

Evidence was given by Harold John Browh, accountant of Bethune and Co., that his firm had been collecting instalments from Parrington. Parrington owed the sum of £BO in June, 1920, on a section at Ngaio. Witness communicated with Parrington and from something told him witness telephoned the accused asking if any sum had been paid 'by Parrington to accused oi to the syndicate regarding the section at Ngaio. He -was tpld that Parrington still owed the sum of £7O on the section. PLANS TO PREPARE.

Robert Charles Thornton, clerk of works, deposed that he knew Cockburn. , Being out of work hi February he interviewed the accused at the office of the Terabidoc Building Syndicate, Lambton quay. Witness explained that he had considerable experience of building operations, and was seeking weak. Accused said he had difficulty in getting out plans as the man doing it had more than he could cope with. After his conversation with accused he had no reason to doubt the bona fides of the syndicate. Accused said he had several gangs of men at work. Accused gave witness ■certain plans to prepare, which witness did. Accused then gave him a job (about March Ist, 1920) at £9 per week £or si' month and £7 p*m* week afterwards. Witness was asked to join the syndicate or company, but he declined to do this. Witness was employed as building supervisor, and was in the employ of accused for about one year, during which period he supervised the erection of one building in Northland. , . . „ Witness was engaged principally in getting out plans and specifications. He witnessed the signatures and agreements. Witness knew nothing of the financial arrangements of the syndicate, and knew of no arrangements having been made for the supply of building materials. In April, 1920, witness discussed the question of a sawmill with accused, who stated that a sawmill .had Been offered to him at Dannevrke .by Mr Vare, ana witness was sent to insect the, mill, and on his return he reported against the purchase. During the time he was with the syndicate he had prepared plans and specifications for buildings worth about £20,000. Witness had received during the year in wages only £63. The building at Northland -which he supervised had been started prior to witness being engaged. He had no reason to doubt the bona fides of the syndicate until about December 15th, owing to the number of callers at the °® C °' THE SAWMILL.

Evidence was given by Frederick William Vare, company secretary, Wellington, that he met the accused, about June or July of last year and ho informed witness that he was managing the Terabidoc Building Syndicate. Sometime in September they had a discussion about a sawmill for the syndicate; at that time witness was secretary of a timber company at Dannevirke, and this company’s property was offered to accused, but the negotiations foil through. , , John Phillip Merewether, employed as a ledger-keeper a.t the Bank of New South Wales, stated that the accimed had an acoaunt- at tho bank 'whaoh dated from June Ist, 1920, to March Bth, 1921. “TO WAIT HER TURN.” Minnie Daweon said she was the wife of P. Dawson, of Nairn street, and was owner of a quarter-acre section at Lower Hutt: In reply to an advertisement in June, 1920, witness eventually agreed to build tier a house for the sum of £IOSO. An agreement was drawn up and signed, and the requisite plans prepared. Witness had paid a deposit of £25 on August 3rd and a

similar amount on August 16th. Accused had intimated to her that he owned timber mills at Dannevirke. No step had been taken towards the erection of the buildings during September, October and November. He explained that it would be necessary for her to ‘wait her turn,” but matters would be perfectly in order. At the present time nothing had been done to the section, neither had her money been returned. ANOTHER AGREEMENT. Arthur George Keif, labourer, stated that in June of 1920 he had inserted an advertisement in the papers to the effect that he was desirous of purchasing a house by paying £IOO deposit. He had received a reply from accused asking him to call, and witness saw accused in hisi office the following day. Accused solid he would build a house for witness and suggested that he should buy a section at Northland. Accused said he could build cheaper thorn other® because he had timber-cutting rights at Dannevirke. Witness inspected sections at Northland and agreed to buy one. On June 21st, 1920, witness entered into an agreement with accused for the building of a house on the section and paid him £SO as a deposit. On July 3rd witness paid a further £SO. The accused was to arrange the finance far the balance. The building was to cost £925 and the section £225. Nothing had been done in the way of building on the section and witness spoke to him about it, when accused said that he was experiencing legal difficulties over the sawmill. Accused told witness that Gapes was the owner of the section at Northland 1 which witness had agreed to purchase. In September last witness consulted a solicitor. Accused had made no attempt to erect the building and had not returned any part of the £IOO paid by witness. AN AWKWARD POSITION. Maurice Allison Treurewan, schoolteacher, Kaxori, stated that he_ knew accused, being introduced to him by a land agent named Whyte in August last. They discussed " the question of erecting a building and accused showed him plans. He further stated that he had sebtions at Northland and witness understood they belonged to' the syndicate. Witness inspected a section at Northland with Whyte and witness thought one of the sections would suit him. On August 24th witness paid accused £IOO, but subsequently changed ’ his mind with, respect to the section and' informed accused. Witness was shown another section, but this dad not suit and witness asked for the return of his deposit. Accused said that was awkward as he had paid VVhyte his commission. Witness subsequently agreed to purchase a section at Kelburn, and accused offered to get witness an option over the land. Plans and specifications were prepared and approved by witness, but as far as witness could: learn nothing had been done towards securing tbe section, and no attempt had .been made to build on the land. He had not received any part of his deposit back. Evidence was given by Robert David McGillivnay, clerk employed in the Defence .Department, that in September he interviewed Whvtc and Son, land agents, with respect to buying a property, and through fclieir instrumentality met the accused. On October 16th he entered into an agreement with, accused to build a house. He had paid Whyte and Son in ail £2OO, and accused 'undertook to have at least two rooms ready for occupation by February. Witness picked the section, paid the £2OO, and the accused was to finance'the rest of the money. ISLAND BAY TRANSACTION. Catherine Smith, residing at Adelaide road, stated that she had Been Whyte and Son about purchasing a house in March. She and her husband were introduced to Oockbura, and at the suggestion of Whyte they inspected a section at the Highland Park. Not ' being desirable, however, they eventually purchased a section for £250 at Island Bay. Witness paid the sum of £IOO and it was decoded that the accused would secure the balance. The money was paid to Whyte in the office of the syndicate. On March 18th, 1920, an agreement was signed for the exeobon of a four-roomed house by the accused. As in the other cases witness bad neither received ft refund nor had any building operations been commenced. OBJECTS OP THE SYNDICATE.

Robert Whyte, land agent, said that he knew the accused and first met him about 15 months ago. Accused called at has office and explained the objects of the Terahidoc Building Syndicate, and gave witness to understand that the syndicate was financially strong. He stated that he had his own architects, builders and. workmen, and explained that on £IOO deposit ho would finance the balance and build a house Worth £llOO or £I2OO. The syndicate would obtain a first mortgage for as large a sum as possible, and carry the second mortgage themselves. Witness thought the scheme a good one, and witness arranged that from those wishing to build he would accept a small deposit and refer the clients to accused, who would complete the arrangements. Mrs Smith came to him with a view to purchasing a section, and she paid him a deposit of £IOO in connection with a section at Island Bay, the purchase price of which was £250. Witness paid £75 of the £IOO deposit to accused. Mr MoGillivray consulted him under similar circumstance®, and he received a sum of £25 from him and a further sum of £76, and later £lO5, and this was paid over tp accused, less £BO. Of tills £SO 1 was paid to the vendor. Witness was never introduced to any member of the syndicate. Witness spoke to the accused several times about the buildings he had undertaken to erect for clients: Besides the two clients witness had handed t-> accused other sums of money. Witness was personally liable for £l5O, in respect to a client of the accused’s, as witness accepted the money and handed it over to the accused, who had failed to carry out his contract. Herbert Sydney Caudwell Whyte, son of the previous witness, said that he entered into an agreement to build a house, but accused never carried out the contract. This experience cost witness about £l5O. Witness then gave evidence in corroboration of what had been stated by liis fattier. James T. Bishop, deputy clerk of the Magistrate’s Court, produced an affidavit made by Thomas Keen. Gookbum made on May 7th, 1920, declaring that the Terabidoc Building Syndicate membership was confined to himself. NEATLY TRAPPED. Detective 3. Torrance detailed the steps taken to bring the accused before the court. The witness called at the office several times but could not get any response to his knocks. He then went to the private house and saw the accused’s wife, who gave witness to understand that accused was out of town. Accompanied by Mrs Cockbum witness went to the back door and called upon accused three times, and on the third occasion witness intimated that if the door was not opened he would force his way iu. The accused then opened the door .and was taken into custody. The hearing of the case for the prosecution occupied nearly the whole day, at the conclusion of which a plea of not guilty was entered. The accused a-eserved his defence and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was permitted in the sum of £l5O and two similar sureties, i