INFORMATIONS DISMISSED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18180, 30 August 1933, Page 12

INFORMATIONS DISMISSED

FALSE PRETENCES COUNTS ACT’S DEFINITION Holding that, though the people concerned had Tjeen treated shamefully, the accused was not guilty of false pretences as deiined by the Act, Mr E. L. Walton, s.M., in the Police Court this morning, without calling upon the defence, dismissed two informations against George Edward Munro, 44, charging him with laving obtained money by false pretences.

i'ne accused was charged with obtaiumg on April 11’ from Eric C Car roll Upton with intent to defraud the sum of £1 13s by falsely representing that Upton’s business' would be advertised in a placard to be printed and circulated about the Gisborne district immediately, and with obtaining from George Smith on April 21, an equal amount by a similar means.

Mr. D. W. lies appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. Detective McLeod explained that the accused arrived in Gisborne early in March, and had order books printed for him by a local printing firm, classing himself as the Poverty Bay Agency Company. He then canvassed various people, including the two complainants, and obtained from them the amounts mentioned on the understanding- that a-- placardadvertising their ' business would ' lie printed 1 immediately. He came ■ here under the name of Munro, and later changed his name to McKay, McNab, McDonald and Morrow. He stopped at various- boarding-houses under those names, and left without paying for his board. At present he was wanted in Napier on similar charges. Evidence was given by the two complainants, Upton and Sfrxith, who stated that the accused represented to them that he was having-an advertising calendar printed and circulated immediately. Smith stated that the accused informed him that the calendar was ready, and that' -his* advertisement was one of the last required to complete it. Evidence of the printing of the order books mentioned by Detective McLeod was given by John Short. Constable King stated that with Constable Gatehouse he interviewed the accused, who gave his name as McNab. He was asked whether he could produce anything to prove that hi? name'w,as McNab, but he was unable to do so. He produced two order books, one'for the Commercial Art Company, Napier, and the other for the Poverty. Bay Agency Company, Gisborne. He said that he had been canvassing in Napier for . orders for a calendar for 1934. On making an examination of the order book of the Poverty Bay Agency Company,. witness found entries showing that the accused had collected money from different people. Ho told witness that ho was getting out a calendar for 1934, and was taking orders. Witness asked the accused who was to print the (calendar, -and he replied that it was a Dunedin firm, but that he could not remember the paine. Asked about his changes of name, he said that the police had been chasing him for debt, and that.“a man* must live.” He admitted that he had been going about under various names.

The magistrate said that the informations were that with intent to defraud tho. accused had obtained sums of money :by a faLe pretence, the false representation being 'that the complainants’ business would be advertised in a calendar to be printed. The Crimes Act said that a false pretence was false representation of a matter of fact either (past or present. There was no evidence that, any false statement had been made as to a past or present fact, the evidence being that the accused had made false promises. There were several cases on record in which it had been held that a promise to do something in the future was not a representation of fact,. There was no evidence that the promise could not have been carried out. Obviously the accused had, treated the people shamefully, yet he was not guilty of false pretences as defined'by the Act, and the only thing j that the court could do was to dismiss the informations.

The accused pleaded guilty to another -charge, laid by the Unemployment Board, that since October, 1930, he had failed to register under the Unemployment Act. It was stated that in addition to his failure to register the accused was in debt to the extent of approximately £8 -in respect of levies and penalties. Mr lies explained that when the Act.came into force the accused was in difficulties. The magistrate remarked that the accused had continued to fail to register for a considerable time. Obviously he had not the money, and he would be fined £1 and costa. The magistrate added a warning that the offence was a continuing one, and unless the accused registered he could be fined again.