FALSE PRETENCES

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11438, 7 February 1923, Page 7

FALSE PRETENCES

YOUNC MAN CONVICTED CONDUCTS OWN DEFENCE IN ORIGINAL MANNER. “PUT YOURSELF IN MY PLACE.” “Not guilty, sir,” promptly announced George Robert Kemp when asked to plead before Mr Justice Chapman and a jury of twelve at the Supreme Court yesterday, in connection with a somewhat formidable array of charge® of alleged false pretences against him. “I have only just been informed, sir, of the fact that I will not be represented by counsel,” said the accused, "‘and accordingly I will have to conduct my own defence. I would ask Your Honour to direct me if I make any mistakes. I will do my best to present my side.” The accused was assured by the judge that he would he given every facility for presenting his defence. Mr P. S. K. Macassey said that Kemp was indicted on four counts. He was employed at the freezing works at Masterton, in which town he opened an account for £l7 at one of the hanks. Although his hank balance had dwindled considerably, he still, issued cheques that were subsequently dishonoured On arriving in Wellington he stayed at a hotel, and tendered a cheque icr £5, representing that he was a member of a well-known florist firm at Masterton'. A further cheque for £2 was also cashed by the hotel proprietor. Nothing further was heard from Keiqp until he was apprehended in Christchurch. The accused: Where I was employ?d. The Crown Prosecutor: I daresay yon were. Mr Macassey added that- tho total sum involved by the alleged valueless cheques being issued totalled £26 12s. There was no money iii the bank to meet the case. The proprietor of a Masterton hotel stated that Kemp had given him two cheques for small sums, both of which were later dishonoured. The accused: You have always found me honest, and in fact I have given you a hand in the hotel at times? —That is so.

“A MASTERTON FLORIST.” . Thomas George Lewis, proprietor of the Bristol private hotel, said Kemp had informed him that he was in business as a florist in Masterton, and_ a member of a well-known firm. Tie accepted the statement, and took fiis cheque for £o. Witness wired to Masterton for confirmation as to the nccused’s financial standing. He was informed that Kemp had no balance at tho bank. Kemp was informed cf this, and he replied to tho effect that a mistake had been made, and the matter would he adjusted. Moneys would be paid in to meet the cheque. The accused requested him to cash a further cheque for £2, which witness did. *Mr Macassey: You still believed that he was a member of the firm of Kemp J —Certainly. I would not have cashed his cheque otherwise. This cheque wts also returned. Ho had seen nothing of Kemp since. NO INTENTION TO DEFRAUD. The accused ontered the witness-bo*, and declared that he had never visited the bank at Masterton and asked for his balance slip, as had been stated by a- previous witness, who was an employee of the hank. Mr Macassey : Do you deny lii6 statement? Witness: No, I do not deny it. The bank clerk might have made a mistake. His defence consisted of complete denials of the allegations put forward by the prosecution. There had been no intention to defraud, as he expected certain sums to be paid in. Who by?—A friend of mine. What was his name ?—I asked you before not to ask me that. I must ask you. Wliat was it? 1 must refuse to tell you. I do not want his name to be published. His Honour: Give us his name. There is no reason why you should, not give it. The accused: I would rather not. Mr Macassey: You refuse to do so? The accused: Y'es, I decline to answer. Very well, then, you do so at your own risk. The accused addressed the jury at some length on somewhat novel lines. He regretted that his knowledge of law was negligible, and that lie was not represented by counsel. Never at any time had he attempted to defraud. He still hoped to honour the cheques. “Just put yourselves in my position, gentlemen,” he said, waving a pencil at the jury. “Put yourselves in my position just for two seconds. I have been in gaol over Christinas. I have done three months for nothing. If I were guilty, would I still persist in the plea of not guilty?” Mr Macassey briefly replied, emphasising the fact that Kemp had admitted m the fiox tliat lie liad been sentenced to, three years’ probation in W ellington on similar charges in 1921. This was not done to prejudice-the accused, but to show wliat credence could be placed on statements from’such a witness. His Honour had allowed the question in order to throw some light on the veracity of the witness. “It is a question of honesty or otherwise,” commented His Honour when summing up. “I will leave that question to you, gentlemen of the jury.” The jury returned, after an hour’s retirement, with a verdict of guilty on all four counts, with a rider to the effect respectfully requesting His Honour to take into consideration tho time tho accused had spent in gaol. The prisoner appealed for leniency, but His Honour said lie could not overlook tho fact that the accused had a chance two yeara ago, and had disregarded it. Kemp was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment with hard labour.