BORROWED NAME

Southland Times, Issue 19546, 9 May 1925, Page 4

BORROWED NAME

TRAVELLING OPTICIAN FINED.

CHARGE OF FALSE PRETENCES. An itinerant optician named Percy Gerald Hendr a appeared before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the Police Court at Dunedin the other day to answer to charges of false pretences, namely, that on March 19, at Janefield, he obtained from Elizabeth Annie McDonald the sum of £2 12s 6d by means of a false pretence, to wit, by representing himself as one of the “Neills” of Dunedin, opticians, with intent to defraud. He was further charged with obtaining by a similar pretence £2 7s 6d from Catherine Cecilia Scherp, at St. Bathans, and £2 12s 6d from Mary Keir, at Tapanui. Chief-detective Lewis prosecuted, and the accused was represented by Mr C. J. L. White.

The Chief-detective said that the circumstances were all connected with one tour which the accused made in Central Otago, and he asked that the charges be taken together. It was while he was away that the accused was alleged to have represented himself as Neill, of Dunedin, and so obtained sales of spectacles. Elizabeth A. McDonald (Janefield, Mosgiel) said that on March 19 a man whom she recognised as the accused called at her house and offered spectacles for sale. He said he was “Neill,” of Dunedin, and she remarked that she was just going to call there. Witness believing him to be Mr Hugh Neill, of Dunedin, did business with him, purchasing a pair of glasses. She obtained a receipt for glasses for her mother and herself. It was signed, “Dunedin Optical Company,' Box 684.” To Mr White: Witness did not see or write to Mr Neill about the glasses.

Mary Keir “(Tapanui) said that the defendant had come into her shop and represented himself to be one of the Neill’s, of Dunedin. On the strength of this witness bought a pair of spectacles from him and her sister bought a pair. Witness paid £2 12s 6d for her pair. When writing out the receipt the accused said: “We are dealing under the name of the Dunedin Optical Company now.” To Mr White: The glasses seemed to be all right. She had no fault to find with them.

Catherine C. Scherp (St Bathans) said that the accused had called on her in a motor car, saying: “I’m Neill, of Dunedin ; we’re one of the greatest firms of opticians in Dunedin, and I’m round giving the country people a chance to get glasses.” Witness was wearing her husband’s glasses and the accused told her this was quite wrong. He tested her eyes, and sold her a pair of glasses for £2 7s 6d. Witness told him she could not see very well, but the optician replied that he was coming round again. The glasses were not muqh good. Witness later wrote to Mr Neill, of Dunedin, asking if he had a traveller touring the district. Ernest Scherp (labourer, residing with his parents at St. Bathans) identified the accused as the traveller who arrived at his place in an Essex motor car. Mr White: Were you there when the accused first spoke to your mother? Witness: Yes. Mr White: Well, she didn’t say so. Can you swear— The Magistrate : She wasn’t asked, Mr White. Mr White: Well, she should have been asked. His Worship: Well, she wasn’t. Annie K. Summers, (nurse at the Dunedin Hospital) said that she was at her home in Arrowtown when the accused called. He tightened the lens of her glasses and informed her that he was travelling for Neill, of Dunedin. She had got her glasses from Neill’s in the first place. Witness's mother purchased a pair of glasses from the accused, paying £2 7s 6d for them. Witness wrote to Mr Neill, of Dunedin, and asked him if he had a representative in Dunedin. George Chance (manager of Dawson’s Ltd., Princes Street, Dunedin) said that the ordinary charge for the glasses sold by the accused (produced) would be 255, which was the standard retail price. This included the case and testing. Counsel produced accused’s touring outfit, and witness remarked that it would need a fairly competent man to handle it. Gordon Kirkpatrick Neill, a member of the firm of Hugh and G. K. Neill, of Dunedin, said that his firm had never had a travelling representative connected with its optical work. He did not know the defendant. During March he received communications from nearly every district in Otago, and as a result he had made a complaint to the police. Witness placed thereail price of accused’s glasses at 255, inclusive of testing, etc. To his Worship: There was nothing in the law to prevent a man setting up as an optician. The Magistrate: There certainly should be. Detective Sneddon said that he had apprehended the accused, who had made a statement in which he denied having represented himself as Neill. Mr White said that this case would serve to show the extraordinary lengths to which traders would go to oust a rival. This case should have been heard in the civil court. The civil digest was full of cases of a similar nature. It was an extraordinary thing, counsel continued, that all the witnesses in this case had had dealings with rival concerns in Dunedin. This man was no fraud, but was of substantial standing and was experienced. He practically graduated in Sydney (though there were no certificates), and he had had 16 years’ training. A great deal had been made of the price of the glasses, which were said to be worth 255, but, of course, every trader was out to make a profit. The Magistrate: Do you mean to say that it is right to swindle the public ? Mr White: Well, there is a limit to all things. Besides he gives a guarantee. The Magistrate: Do you suggest that the guarantee is worth anything? Mr White: He is a man of standing and leaves an address. The Magistrate: A Post Office address. Evidence was given by the accused, who said that he had had 17 years’ experience of optical work. He had travelled through Otago six times. He had found that all the big firms were jealous of his business, which in the country was bigger than their own. Some of the city firms advertised extensively in the country, and witness had been mistaken time and again for Neill. Witness gave a five years' guarantee on his goods, and changed lenses free, if necessary. He called round his clients in the country every two years. It had been his intention to form a business in Dunedin under the name of the Dunedin Optical Company, and for that reason he gave one client that address. Mr White pointed out that Neill’s had a civil action. Impersonation, he said, was not a crime except in specified cases. His Worship: Impersonation may be a very essential dement in false pretences, Mr White. His Worship said that after hearing the evidence he had no hesitation in deciding that the defendant in each charge had knowingly misrepresented himself as either Neill • or belonging to Neill’s. That was supported by the evidence of witnesses and by the receipts he had given, purporting to be from the Dunedin Optical Company. They were not signed by any name, and ' he was satisfied that they were signed by the defendant in each case as Neill —that was to say the person to whom the glasses were sold believed that Neill had signed it. It was quite true, as Mr White had said, that proceedings of this nature were not usual. Usually, in a case of false pretences, nothing was given, but in this case a pair of glasses was exchanged. However k the articles supplied were not, he was . satisfied, of the value or even within a reasonable amount of the value of the price , charged. He thought that under those - circumstances the defendant was guilty of false pretences. The accused knew that the parties who dealt with him relied on his being Neill, and he was giving something that was not of value. The defendant

would be convicted on one charge. “Certainly it is a practice which deserves no consideration,” concluded his Worship. “Apparently there is nothing to prevent anyone from setting up as an optician. That is very improper.”

A fine of £lO, and witnesses’ expenses (£l3) was imposed, in default one month’s imprisonment. Security for appeal was fixed at £lO.