13-YEAR-OLD CHARGE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18468, 6 August 1934, Page 6

13-YEAR-OLD CHARGE

REPATRIATION ADVANCE FALSE PRETENCE ALLEGED THE CASE DISMISSED A cliargo of obtaining £SO from the Repatriation Department in 1921 by a false pretence was dismissed by Mr. E. L. Walton, S.M., to-day. The accused was Leonard Naylor, Wairoa (Mr. E. T. Brosnahan), who was charged with attempting to defraud by obtaining at Gisborne an advance of £SO from the Repatriation Department by a false pretence by representing that the money was for the purchase of six cows from F. J. Hollis, who was said to be the owner of the cows. Detective McLeod stated that when inquiries were made recently it was found that the cows did not exist, but witness also stated, in reply to questions by the magistrate, that while the debt was being! repaid no investigation was made concerning the cows. Explaining the circumstances of! the case, Detective McLc.od said that the charge was laid under the Crimes Act, 1903. In October, 1921, the accused asked the Repatriation Department for an advance for the purpose of buying six cows, and later the money was paid over to Hollis on behalf of the accused. An instrument of security was registered, and had been renewed twice, the last occasion being in 1931. The payments were kept up until last year, and then no trace could be found of 4lie accused', who was later located at Wairon.

Oil further investigations being made, the detective continued, it was found that the cows did not exist.

His Worship: Did file departmentnever inspect them? i Detective McLeod: Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it did. The detective added that the accused had repaid £32 of the advance of £SO.

His Worship: You are asking a man to defend himself on a charge that is 13 vears old.

Mr. Brosnalnm said that was part of the. defence, for after such a lapse of time the cows and their cream supply would he difficult to trace.

The magistrate: The question is this: The case is 13 years old, and I shall have to be satisfied very conclusively before. I will commit a man for trial on such information.

In reply to the magistrate, who asked how the' Repatriation Department ex•tainert why it did not make an inspection of the cows, Detective McLeod said that a society was running the. affairs in Gisborne, and, die was sorry to sav, loosely. His Worship: It would appear that the bargain made 13 years ago was satisfactory to both sides, until the defendant made'default, and then the police started a criminal action. The detective: That is so.

The magistrate: It seems to me to be a matter in which the department should pursue a civil remedy. If those are the facts, I should say the information should he dismissed.

Detective McLeod repeated his resume of the evidence he proposed to call, and added: “The cows do not exist.”

The magistrate: They may not exist now. The documents say that the advance was to purchase cows, and vou say he did not keep his promise. The department has £32 back, and should seek a civil remedy to find the other £lB.

Detective McLeod: Those ave the facts.

11 is Worship: Then I shall dismiss,the information.