Untitled

Otago Witness, Issue 3912, 5 March 1929, Page 48

Charged with having borrowed from Henry Divers the sum of £35 on the pretence that the chattels on which the amount was to be lent were free of all encumbrance, Edward James Murch appeared before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., at the City Police Court on Saturday. The accused pleaded guilty. Chief Detective Cameron stated that in July 1928, the accused’s wife purchased some furniture from Butterfield’s, Ltd., on the hire purchase system. On th'S she got a loan from another moneylending firm, and shortly afterwards went to Mr Divers and applied for a further loan of £35 on the same chattels. Mr Divers agreed to lend the money on condition that both husband and wife signed the instrument. Both signed, and the money was passed over, with the result that they were charged with false pretences. Mrs Murch appeared on summons, and at the subsequent sitting of the Supreme Court was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence any time if called on within 12 months; the accused, however, disappeared, and' was arrested at Timaru on Thursday. To the magistrate, the accused expressed himself as sorry that he had had anything to do with the transaction. He had never handled any of the money, and as he was now in steady employment in Timaru, he would be willing to make restitution at the rate of £2 per month. Chief Detective Cameron pointed out that when the accused’s wife was charged, it had been suggested that she was under the influence of the accused when she committed the offence, but from what he knew of the two parties it was probably the other way about. The magistrate said that on the accused’s own admission he was earning £4 10s per week, and his offer of £2 per month was therefore absurd. He would be admitted to probation for 12 months, restitution to be made at the rate of 30s per week. “ During recent years the fire loss problem in the Dominion has been a matter of grave concern to the insurance offices,” states a report just issued by the Government Statistician. “In 1924 the amount paid out by way of compensation reached the then unprecedented figure of £1,046,328. The increase in that year, however, was mainly the result of one particularly- disastrous outbreak; and in 1925, although heavier than any other year, with the exception of 1924 there •was a decrease of £169,970. The year 1926, however, saw a further rise to £1,127,140, but even this was eclipsed during 1927, -when the amount paid to the public totalled £1,257,515. The net fii'e losses suffered by the insurance companies during 1927 totalled £838,890, compared with £760,825, for 1926 and £621,410 for 1925.

Dissatisfaction with the payments to suppliers made by the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Co. was recently expressed in a resolution of the Shareholders’ Association, as telegraphed from Te Awamutu. A representative meeting of suppliers at Hamilton dissociated itself from the Shareholders’ Association resolution, deprecating its attitude, and reaffirming its confidence in the management.