GEORGE SWANN SENTENCED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20022, 12 February 1927, Page 20

GEORGE SWANN SENTENCED.

THREE YEARS’ HARD LABOUR. SUM INVOLVED UNKNOWN. JUDGE’S r 0 INTEL REM A RKb. The final stage of tho case in which George Thomson Swann was charged with obtaining money under false pretences was reached at the Supreme Court morning, when his Honor Mr Justice Reed sentenced accused to three years’ hard labour. The charges against Swann were that between March, 1924, and March, 1925, at Dunedin and Beaumont, with intent to defraud, ho received sums of money "roin four different persons, by representing that he was dealing in second-hand machinery and that ho was supplying machinery to the New Zealand and South So-as Exhibition; and that by investing money with him the investors would participate in the profits from tho sale of the machinery. The sums Swann was alleged to have received were as follow: —£180 from Mar garet Gibson. £292 from Elma Alice Crawford, £1953 from John James, and £530 from Mary Ann Hall. Accused was represented by Mr A. O. Hanlon and Mr G. T. Bayleo. Mr Hanlon, in addressing the judge on behalf of accused, said that it had been alleged that the sum involved amounted to £20,000. Learned counsel had made search of accused’s books and papers, but so far as he could nothing approaching that amount was involved. It might be £6OOO or £7OOO. Accused came to New Zealand as a youth of 16 in 1893, and Inter went into his sawmaking business. He withdraw from it in 1923 to enter another firm, but he returned to his former business as a working hand. It was about this time that he began to obtain small sums of money for investment, and he was led by the apparent ease with which ho. obtained this money to gather in larger sums by fraud. As a result he became seriously involved. A system of “robbing PeVr to pay Paul’’ then began. Somebody would press Swann for money, and he would obtain it from others, It would be seen, therefore, that though a considerable amount of money was involved a large proportion’had been returned to the people from whom it bad been received. Matters became so involved that in 1925 accused’s mental state became bad, and he went into a mental hospital, where he remained from March to October. Afterwards ho went to Australia. The fact that friends had to provide money to enable prisoner’s wife and family to live was some evidence of his not having any money. If £20,000 were involved neither ho nor his friends knew what had become of the money. On one occasion when ho was being pressed for money ho borrowed £BOO from his father’s firm, but it had got none of the loan hack. It was quite obvious, therefore, that, though there wore several transactions, Swann had made nothing out of them. Learned counsel asked his Honor to deal with accused as leniently as he possibly could under the circumstances. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams), referring to the extent of the transactions, said it was impossible to prove the exaor. amount involved, but the sums mentioned by the prosecution were obtained from lists compiled by those who had had tho matter in hand and they were believed to be a low estimate. The money prisoner had gathered in must have gone somewhere. Even if the amount had been £6OOO, as learned counsel had said, the monov had disappeared somewhere in 18 months or two years. The mystery was what had happened to it whether it was £6OOO or £20,000, and die court was without explanation on this point. The nature of some of tho cases was to be considered. In that of Mrs Hall accused had received the money which he had obtained after selling an hotel. She and her husband wore both in bad health. Swann had “invested’’ the money for her, stating that the effect would bo disastrous if it went into the Public Trust. Mrs Crawford’s case was similar. Complainant’s father had died, and on the following day prisoner had got info touch with one of the family, undertaking to invest the money deceased had left. Tho money had now_ disappeared. Blair, a man who sold papers in the streets, had given Swann £IBO fo r investment, and it. too, was gone. Under the circumstances, Mr Adams suggested, tho offences were very much aggravated. His Honor said it appeared to him that prisoner wont deliberately about his_ work, ingratiating himself with persons in the first place and establishing a confidence which enabled him to obtain tho money. The sum involved was large, and ho Brought he would only be doing his duty by inflicting a heavy penalty. Prisoner would be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.