FRAUD ON A WOMAN.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LI, Issue 16671, 26 February 1925, Page 8

FRAUD ON A WOMAN.

THE. 'CONFIDENCE TRICK. (Per Press Association.) NAPIER, last night. At the Supreme Court today, John Francis Jackson appeared to answer a charge (1) that, on or about August- 5, 1924, at Wellington, lie obtained £IOO from Violet Helena Eoyd-Turner by false representations; (2) that on August 14, 1924, at Wellington, be obtained £6O from Violet Helena Boyd-Turner by false representations'; (3) that on September 17, 1924 at Auckland, be obtained £4O from Violet Helena Boyd-Turner by false pretences; (4) that on August 14, 1924, iio made a- false document purporting to be a cheque signed by D. J. McKinnon for £261 3s fid drawn on the Bank of New South Wales. Sydney, thereby committing forgery; (5) that on August 14, 1924. at Wellington, knowing a cheque to be a forgery, lie caused Vkv let Helena Boyd-Turner to act upon it as if it. were genuine. Opening the ease for the Crown, Mr. Lusk said the offence really was an example of what is known as “the confidence trick,” and if accused were guilty lie was nothing more nor less than ‘‘a .confidence man.” lie had worked his way into the friendship and trust of the Boyd-Turners and used 1 this' trust as a means of fraud. Mr. llislop. for the accused, said the accused and Mrs. Boyd-Turner were evidently on terms of friendship. They addressed each other by their first names. Accused maintained that the money was lent by Dlrs. Boyd-Turner out of friendship. She had not told her husband anything at all. That, was natural, as a married woman would not like to tell, her husband that she had lent, money. What was to prevent accused absconding? He was a man with no ties and could have got clean away. As it was, he kept Mrs; Boyd-Turner posted 1 as to his movements.

Judge Alpers, summing-up, said that although counsel for the defence hud treated Mrs. Boyd-Turner with all courtesy and respect, there were several matters hy wished to point out dearly. ■Firstly, there was nothing in the fact that accused and .Mrs'. Boyd-Turner called each other by their first names. Accused had called Mrs. Boyd-Turner by hcr name since days prioi' to her marriage, and it was perfectly natural Unit the custom should continue after marriage. Secondly, the money used by her was absolutely her own, and the fact that she did not tell her husband did not betray a- guilty secret. Shu could invest it in any manner she wished, with or without her husband’s, knowledge. The jury retired at 3.30 and returned at 4.20 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on all counts, and accused was remanded for sentence till to-day,