BAITING A TRAP

NZ Truth, Issue 868, 15 July 1922, Page 6

BAITING A TRAP

RILEY'S UNRIGHTEOUS RUSE

Alleged Series Of Swindles

SHY VICTIMS ONLY NIBBLE

A couple of advertisements and an allegedly bogus cheque were the foundation of a police prosecution at Christchurch the other day, wherein there was told a story of Wallingford intentions which fell decidedly flat, mainly owing to the stunt being overdone. The advertisements were published m a Christchurch newspaper, and many persons replied to them. As a result, Charles Francis Riley duly appeared before Magistrate Wilson m the Police Court, charged as follows: — That on May 23rd, with intent to defraud, he attempted to obtain from Don Harvey the sum of £50, by falsely stating lie had sold the rights of a patent receptacle to Mennie, Ltd., of Auckland, for £8000, and that the said receptacle Was patented m countries m which it was intended that Harvey should travel on his behalf. A further charge was that on May sth he mad© a false document, to wit, a cheque on the National Bank of New Zealand, at Wellington, for £8000, purporting to be signed by Alfred Barker, the manager

of the Windsor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., knowing the cheque to ibe false and with intent that it should be acted upon as genuine.

Riley iwas represented toy Lawyer C. S. Thomas, and the prosecution was conducted by Chief Detective Cameron, who, m opening the case, said the accused had had an office m High Street, where he posed as a mechanical draftsman. He advertised m the "Sun" for a young man as partner,. , and m another advertisement asked for correspondence from inventors. In regard to the partnership advertisement it was pointed out that from £50 to £ 100 <was required. No address was given m the advertisement, but applicants were asked to write to a c certain number. One, Wilkinson, replied to the advertisement, and was granted an interview by the accused, who told him that he had patented a certain collapsible tin and sold the local rights for £8000 to a Wellington firm. He said he wanted a man to tour Europe and sell the rights. . He agreed to pay Wilkinson £5 a week, but said he must deposit £50 .or £100 as security, that he would return to N.Z.

With the consent of Counsel, both charges were incorporated m the one set of depositions.

Noel "Fid wards, employed m the office of the Christchurch "Sun," gave evidence of the accused having inserted m that paper certain advertisements relating to a partnership as described m the Chief Detective's opening address.

On the occasion of one of his visits to the office, accused showed witness a

CHEQUE FOR £8000

which he said he had received for the rights of the patent. He explained that he did not think he would sell the patent outright as it was quite likely he would still get more for it.

Cecil Howard Wilkinson, clerk, stated that he saw advertisements m the Christchurch "Sun" calling applications for a traveller with a capital of ; £50 or £100. He answered the advertisement, and m due course received a reply, signed by Riley, granting him an , interview. On the appointed date he : called at Riley's office m High Street ! Chambers. During half an hour's cons' versation Riley outlined his plans, | which were to the effect that he had patented a collapsible tin and had sold the patent to the Windsor Manufacturing Co., of Wellington, for £8000, He showed (witness a cheque for £8000, i made out m his favor, and purporting j to have been signed by a Mr. Barker, las representative of the company j named. Riley explained that it was his ; intention to send a man abroad, for the ; purpose of selling the tin to tea and biscuit manufacturers.

It would be necessary, however, for the traveller to deposit £50 or £100 as evidence of good faith, the amount to be refunded with interest on his return to N.Z. He was to receive a second class return passage, v with all expenpp'! paid, also £5 per week arid a commission on sales, the latter to accumulate and be placed to his credit during his absence abroad. Witness agreed to take the position subject to Riley satisfying him as to references. It was decided /to produce the credentials the following day; but when Riley did not produce them (witness became suspicious, and wired the Windsor Manufacturing Company m Wellington.' As a result of their reply, he let the whole matter drop.

Walter Sydney Brown, general manager of the Windsor Manufacturing Co., Wellington, said his firm had never had any dealings with a firm known as Riley & Co., Christchurch, neither had the cheque produced been - drawn by witness's firm.

Don Harvey, "a business man," gave evidence of answering the newspaper advertisement already referred to. In consequence, he called on accused, who after intimating that it had cost him 'over £300 to float the patent, outlined a proposition similar to that detailed by the witness, Wilkinson. At the conclusion, Riley made

SOME "SLOPPY" REFERENCE

to witness's handwriting, and said, "Well, I like you, but I've a whole heap of applications to consider, and will bear you m mind." Riley begged to bring the interview to a close, "as he ■had money invested m the concern and had to attend a meeting of - directors." An appointment was made for the next day, and when witness put m an appearance, accused said that Cook's man, who was to arrange the itinerary of the tour, had not turned up. Riley and witness, therefore, got some books and mapped out a route. Witness agreed to start m ten days' time if he was satisfied as to the bona fides of Riley & Co. It was at- first suggested that he should go initially to Australia, but later Riley altered his mind and mapped it out that Chicago, Boston and the rest of America should be worked first. He worked the cost out at about £250, and added that he would give witness three,, months' wages m advance and throw m an additional

£20 for pocket money oh board the boat. He intimated that he thought witness was abstemious and conscientious, and would, if there happened to be a balance, refund it on his return. After America, witness was 'advised to go across to London, and after laying a foundation for future work, he could, if ■he felt run down, take a month's holiday at the expense of Riley & Co., and then set out to clean up England. A trip to China and Japan was also decided upon. Witness was given a sheet of .Riley & Co.'s notepaper and asked to take it home and draw up an agreement regarding the terms of the arrangement. A day or two later witness again called on the accused, who said he hoped witness hadn't made it too hot for him m the agreement. Witness, however, had thought things over and, being rather "fed up," told Riley that he

WANTED FURTHER INFORMATION before he would draw up an agreement. He asked who were the partners m the firm, whereupon accused brought to light a sheet of printed foolscap from which he read the opening lines of a partnership agreement. Witness expressed a desire to meet one of the partners, and also suggested that rather than deposit as a guarantee £60 or £100, it would be much more businesslike to take out a fidelity guarantee. Rily replied that while witness was away the interest would be accumulating on the deposit. Witness referred to the £8000 capital of the firm, butt: Riley told 'him that that money belonged to the partnership, and that personally he could not touch it. Witness reckoned he would talk the business over with his wife and see what she thought of it. Riley seemed relieved at this, and said, "Do, by all means, and see me again to-mor-row." Next day witness called and told Riley that he had decided to turn the proposition down. Nearly every time witness called at the office, Riley was engaged, and other people were waiting for him. On one of these occasions, while waiting, witness heard a conversation between Riley and another party whom he had m his office. Riley was then discussing the proposed route to be taken by his representative. His conversation was similar to that which he had had with witness.

• Detective-Sergeant T. Gibson stated that when he arrested accused on June 16, he 'said, "I have not obtained any money." Witness searched him and found a cheque for £8000 concealed m a cigarette case. Accused said, '"I wrote it myself, but I did not use.it." In a drawer was another cheque O7i the National Bank, and the papers produced, containing a patent receptacle.

Accused pleaded not guilty on b..<th charges and reserved his defence He was committed to . the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was fixed m accused's own bond of £100 and two sureties of £50 each.