“ON THE BORDER”

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11194, 27 April 1922, Page 6

“ON THE BORDER”

OF GRIME AND FRAUD A FURNITURE DEAL AND A TENPOUND NOTE. MAGISTRATE’S COMMENTS. The tale of a ten-pound note was told before Mr F. IC. Hunt, S.M., yesterday, when William Hawthorne was charged wjth committing theft of £lO from Hannah Minahan on February 21st last. Senior-Sergeant John Lander prosecuted, and Mr A. B. Sievwright appeared for the accused, who elected to De tried by a jury. George Ernest Beveridge, barman at the Post Office Hotel, gave evidence along these lines: On February 20th he had agreed to buy the contents of a house from Mrs Minahan. He had agreed to, pay £llO, and paid a deposit of £2, the rest to be paid next day. The following morning ho withdrew £IOB from the Post Office Savings Bank. Finding that he could not get off from work, he had telephoned the accused, who was his brother-in-law, and the latter had agreed to take up the money and bring back the receipt. This was in Hawthorne’s handivriling, and signed by. Mrs Minahan. To Mr Sievwright: Mrs Minahan had asked the accused on the 21st “what he was getting out of it?” Three days later he had heard sonje mention of a £lO commission from Mrs Minahan to the accused. Some time later Mrs Minahan 'had come to him, and said that she wanted more money to move into a house in Cambridge terrace, and was going to sell her gramophone. Hawthorne had proteste ed that she was unable to do thiß, as it

was included on the inventory of the furniture .bought, and that should she do so she would be arrested. Then there had been a row. “BEATEN DOWN.” Hannah .Minahan. residing at 21, Cambridge terrace, and formerly of 21, Jessie street, entered the box. She remembered the visit of tne accused, and Beveridge and the £2 deposit being paid the same night. Her son-in-law signed the receipt for the balance of the sum when they had arrived with it. Next day the accused had appeared on the scene. She had wanted £l6O, and was beaten down to £llO. Hawthorne had brought the balance of the purchase-money, and had told her that he was a licensed agent. “He had the receipt all written,” said witness, “and I asked him where his office was, and he said that he was retired and married.”' “£lO FOR HIS TROUBLE.” He had signed tie receipt before sho had received the money, and her daughter had been called in as witness, and then accused had pulled the money out of his pocket, where he carried it loose. “I can’t count'big pieces of money like that,” said witness. “My daugh-ter-in-law counted it,.'and said that there wasn’t £llO there. He said that be wanted £lO for his trouble, and 1 said that if he took £lO I wanted tho gramophone or a big picture off the wall. And, as a matter of fact, I had already given him two nice birds for his ‘missus’ or his mother-in-law.” “His poor mother-in-laW won’t get them either,” she went on; “she’s in the hospital with one foot in the grave and the other alongside it. He’s taken me down, and he’d take anybody down.’’ She denied Mr Sievwright’s suggestion that she bad promised accused any commission. “He kept the £lO you paid him. Well, what for?” asked counsel. “That’s just what 1 want to know,” answered witness. Accused told her that he would get his commission out of “those people,” but had eventually said that he was going to keep the £lO. “He’d no right' to,’’- said the Bench. “In order to get even with him, yon said that you were going to take the gramophone?” asked counsel. “Oh, I’ve heard all that twice/* said the Bench, impatiently. “He’s a dirty dog!” said witness as she left the box. Further evidence was called as to the details of ipayment. THE CHARGE DISMISSED. Mr Sievwright then desired to address the court, making application that the charge should be dismissed. “This case is on the border-line of crime and fraud,’’ said His Worship. “Before I convict a man of fraud I must be satisfied of mens rea; that is, guilty intent. There isn’t a tittle of evidence That he was entitled to the money—there is evidence that he may have thought that he was. The case isn’t strong enough for me to send up; if I were trying it I should dismiss it. But,” turning to Mrs Minahan: “It seems to me that, from what I’ve heard of the case, you’re entitled to your £lO. You go to some solicitor and sue him for it.”