A MOTOR DEAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20086, 30 April 1927, Page 20

A MOTOR DEAL.

TWO YOUNG MEN CHARGED ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION BOTH COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Charges o! false pretences, conspiracy, and forgery, which wore preferred against Stanley Kitchener Barnett and Henry Emmett Shiel at the City Police Court on Wednesday last before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., were concluded yesterday, both accused being committed for trial on all the charges. The charges were:— 1. That on March 4 last, at Dunedin, with intent to defraud, they obtained from the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company (Ltd.) a Fiat car valued at £298 by means of falsely representing that a Buick car to bo traded in was in good running order, that it was the property of and was being used by G. S. Thompson, a farmer, of Balfour, and that Thompson intended to purchase two new motor cars from the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company. . 2. That they conspired with each other by fraudulent means to defraud the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company of a Fiat motor car valued at £298. 3. That they made a false document —a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand at Dunedin for £9B, purporting to be signed by G. S. Thompson knowing it to bo false, with the intention that it should be acted upon aa genuine.

Chief Detective Cameron represented the police. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for Barnett, and Mr A. G. Neill for Shiel. The charges were taken together. Norman Alexander Mitchell said he was an apprentice with the Now Zealand Motor and Engineering Co. (Ltd.). Ho gave evidence as to getting a Fiat car in Stafford street, in front of Shiel’s garage. He did not start the engine, but ran the car down aa far aa Crawford atreet, and tried to get the engine to go, but he found there was no power in the battery, although the terminala were all right, and he had to get the vehicle towed to the garage in Dowling atreet. Albert Arthur Edwards, aaid ho was assistant accountant in the Bank of Now Zealand. Ho remembered the defendant, Shiel, coming to see him about March 7. Ho remembered a cheque coming to the bank two days later signed “G. S. ihompaon.” It was for £9B. This would bo two days after Shiel saw him. He had a conversation with Shiel, who said ho had issued a cheque for £9B in the name of G. S. Thompson. Ho told Shiel it was a foolish thing to do, to issue a cheque in another man’s name. It was irregular as far as bank practice was concerned. Shiel said he had issued the cheque as ho did not wish his identity revealed in a deal he was making. Ho told Shiel to issue another cheque in his own name, and ho witness, would let him know when tho Thompson cheque came in. Shiel issued ono of his own cheques for £9B and the Thompson cheque came in two days jater, and it was destroyed by witness in Shiols presence. 'Hiore was no account in tho name of G. S. Thompson. To Mr Neill: He was relying on his memory as to the date on which Slnol first saw him with regard to the ±.ya cheque. Ho had known of a similar transaction in tho bank, but witness had not handled it. The transaction was entirely unconnected with Shiel. , . To Mr Hanlon: Arrangements had boon made by Shiel that whon the cheque was presented it would be honoured. Witness explained that the condition was that Shiel’* cheque for the amount was to be forthcoming. Arrangement* were certainly made prior to the presentation or the Thompson cheque. Edward Joshua Kerr said ho wa* clerk tn charge of the Motor Registration Department at tho Dunedin Post Office. An application to register a Buiok car was made on behalf of G. S. Thompson. Una was on April 9. It was presented by a young lady. Ho inquired whether tho car was a now ono or one which had not been previously registered. The lady was in doubt and appeared to bo unable to say whether it had been. He told her to return to the office and making inquiries. The car was ultimately registered as ono which had not previously been registered. Tho car was registered in the name of George Stanley Thompson, of Balfour. Mr Hanlon, at this stage, raised the question pf whether this evidence was relevant to the question at issue. His Worship aaid the evidence was relevant.

Witness, continuing, said ho issued documents of registration on which ail particulars were quite clear. Later ho received an application for change of ownership with regard to the same car. The transfer was from G. S. Thompson to the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company. The dates on the documents issued in the first instance wore obliterated when the documents were handed back for transfer. The number plates were also in perfect order when issued, and were in the original wrappings. Gladys Marjory Carter said she waa a typisto employed at Shiel’s garage. On March 9 she received an application for the registration of a Buick car from Mr Shiel. She took the form to the Motor Registration Department, and -compiled with the officer’s wishes as regards o!>, taining definite particulars. The number plates and registration form were handed over in good order to Emmett Shiel. Edward Joshua Kerr (recalled) saia he did not think the marks on the number plates, produced, could be made by a more knock or bang. Detective Allsopp said that on. the after noon of March IX, as a result of a telephone message he went to Shiol’s garage accon panied by Detective Russell. There he saw Mr Peel and the two accused. Mr Peel informed witness that there had been misrepresentation regarding the sale of a Fiat motor car to G. S. Thompson, of Balfour. Witness told Mr Peel ho had better go to the Police Station with his c.-mplaint. Mr Peel then showed witness an old Buick motor-car with the number plates produced._ He took possession of these. Later witness called at the Bank of N T cw Zealand to make inquiries regard ing the £9B. There he met Emmett Shiel, who said: I am the “G. S. Thompson” referred to.” Shiel said he “doctered up the number plates a bit so as to make them coincide with the car.” That even ing both accused called at the detective office by invitation. Tie asked Barnett if ho wished to make a statement, and ho said he did not wish to do so. Chief Detective Cameron said that on March 11 the defendant Shiel called at witness's office, and made an explanation regarding the transaction of the motorcars. Witness typed out the statement, and after reading it over Shiel was asked to sign it. He said he would consult his solicitor. Shiel and his solicitor called the next day and after his solicitor had made some alterations the defendant, Shiel, signed the statement which witness produced and read over. The statement was to the effect that Shiel had three used cars when he had gone out of business, one being a single son ter Buick which was in running order. Ho wanted a new car, and wished to trade one in. He knew he could not make the deal successfully in his own name, and had asked Barnett to act for him and to use the name G. S. Thompson, or any other name. Barnett approached the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company. The Buick was inspected and it was agreed it would be taken in at £2OO. Ho signed the note ”G. S. Thompson,” and gave Barnett a cheque for £93. Subsequently he received a price list and a receipt Soon after the deal he had gone to the bark and arranged that, when Iho cheque crime in, it would Ho met. Hs considered Hint a fair value for the Buick would be £165. On March 8 or 9 lie had a Buick registered in the name of G. S. Thompson. The company took possession of it. Asked by witness v.’hy be bad registered the car as a new car Shiel said it had not been previously registered or had been used since the new registration had come into force, therefore he had to register it a* a new car.

Mr Noil!, in the course of his address to the court. said that no representation that-the car wan in rnnniuy order ha r ! been made before the trade-in had lioon completed. Further, that there wan no evidence of a statement that there was to bo another purchase. If there were an undertakina to that effect it should have been included in the con-tra-t. If there were no misrepresentation. therefore there could he no conspiracy. In reyard to the eh a rite of foraery. counsel pointed out that the elieuu ■ had not been accepted as payment by the company, and that the bank could not say when the cheoue had been arranged for. It was no offence for a man

to assume any name ho liked for the purpose of carrying on business so long as It was not for a fraudulent purpose. Shiel had assumed the name of G. S. Thompson, and, counsel contended, he had every right to do so, and to sign a cheque in that name. Mr Hanlon said ho endorsed what Mr Neill had said. He added that it was very significant that the complainants had first treated the matter as a civil mater, and onlv when they had failed to get the car back had they passed the matter over to the police. They realised that they had been taken down in a shrewd business deal, and it looked as though the criminal law was being used for the purpose of recovering a civil debt, Barnett was simply a servant, and would have to do as ho was told. Counsel went on to contend that the cheque was a genuine and not a false document, and further, that, in arranging for the trading in of the Buick at the price fixed by the complainants themselves he failed to see any evidence of conspiracy. There was no evidence that 4 he car was not in running order, onlv that the battery had run down. V ith regard to the alleged statement that a second sale was to be effected, it was evident that this statement Md not been relied upon, or it would have been included in the contract. Counsel regarded the ease as the most ridiculous that had troubled the court for some time. It was clear that the company, or some of its creditors, felt that they had been "had,” and when they could not 'get back what they had lost they had handed the case over with the idea of getting the men into gaol. Mr Bartholomew said he was of the opinion that a prima facie case had been made out, and that the accused should be committed for trial. Therefore, it would not be proper for him to comment on the evidence. The accused reserved their defence, and were committed for trial on each charge. On the question of bail, Chief Detective Cameron sa he had no objection to it being allowed, but ne would ask permission to impound the Fiat car, which was in the possession of Shiel. Mr Bartholomew said he could not make an order. No decision had been come to in any way. He would fix bail for each accused in £SO, and one surety of £SO on one charge, and their own recognisance on the others.