AN IMPUDENT IMPOSTER

Southland Times, Issue 19560, 7 July 1922, Page 6

AN IMPUDENT IMPOSTER

SOUTHLAND PEOPLE VICTIMISED. OFFENDER SENT TO GAOL. (Special to the Times). CHRISTCHURCH, July 6. “He has been going round the country in a most impudent way imposing on people for small sums of money. The man is of fairly good address. He is what I think is called that class of person who trades on being pretty. He has been imposing on people by his decent appearance and they believed him, and he has taken them down. This kind of thing is far too common nowadays, and there is only one way to check it, ( to inflict imprisonment.” The Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Wyvern Wilson, spoke in this fashion at the court this morning of a spruce young man thirtyfour years of age who was faced with five charges of imposition. Accused was Claude Randolph Marmont, and liis aliases were Montent Bird, Smith May Parker, and Campbell Marmont. He was charged that by false pretences be obtained £1 10/- from John McFarlane, of Otautau, 15/- from .Mrs Lilly Duncan, of Christchurch, £1 6/- from Thomas Duncan (/Rourke, Otautau, £1 10/from Mary Wyber, of Gore, and £3 from Minnie Purdue, of Nightcaps. Accused obtained the sums by representing that he bought and sold farms and that his car had broken down. Chief-Detective Camcron informed the Court that accused had been, going from place to place victimising people. There were other cases of victimisation in all probability attributable to accused. As far as the case of Mrs Purdue was concerned he had represented himself to be one, Smith, ! and a person well-known to the Purdue i family. Mrs Purdue believed him and let him have the sum mentioned. He went on under different names taking people down. I Detective Thompson gave evidence, statj ing that when arrested accused expressed ■ regret. He then made a statement admitti ing his guilt. He said he wanted to make ; a clean breast of it. ' Concerning accused's previous record, ' the Chief-Detective stated that in 1916 at j Auckland he was convicted and fined £5 jon a charge of false pretences. In April, J 1919, he was convicted and discharged on [ two charges of false pretences at. Aucki land, and at the same place in March, 1919, • he was sentenced to three months’ hard i labour on a charge of false pretences. • Running- concurrently with this sentence ! was one of one month’s imprisonment for ; failing to provide maintenance. i Accused stated that he would not have committed the offences if he had been able to get work. “This seems to be an old game of yours,” said the Magistrate to accused. He did not altogether agree with a fine in cases of false pretences. Accused was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment on each of the five charges, the sentences to be cumulative. “It will help you to get into the habit of work,” said the Magistrate. “Nowadays 1 the work is very steady and the habits I are regular, and to my way of thinking the • prisoners are very comfortably housed and j fed.”