EASY FINANCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 September 1926, Page 5

EASY FINANCE.

COOK AND CONSTABLE. PECULIAR MONETARY DEALINGS. A ease in which, financial dealings were well tangled caused a good deal of interest at the Wanganui Supreme Court on Friday, when John James Stuart, represented by Mr. C. A. Treadwell, of Wellington, claimed from Frank Hedgman (Mr. A. A. Barton) the sum of £1024 alleged, to have been paid to defendant and held on behalf of plaintiff. There was a certain amount of local interest in the case owing to the fact that defendant was at one time a police constable stationed at Wanganui. In stating the case for the plaintiff Mr. Treadwell said that his client was a man with little or no education, who had a most peculiar mental outlook. He waS" a. cook and at one time had had the Aotea Buffet in Wanganui. BECAME VERY FRIENDLY. While running this establishment he had met the defendant who was a constable and the pair had become very friendly. In 1921 plaintiff had disposed of his business and had handed over the settling up transactions to defendant to deal with. Plaintiff had implicit faith in defendant arid finally was induced to invest a sum of £360 odd in a property in Ingestre Street. Ag plaintiff was going to a job at New Plymouth defendant. advised him to hand over a sum of £4l which plaintiff still had to his credit in a bank. This was to pay plain-, tiff's debts. Plaintiff left Wanganui and from time to time he sent amounts of money to Hedgman. Defendant had told plaintiff that he would guide the financial affairs of plaintiff for him, so that he could win a fortune. Month by month until just a short time ago Stuart sent regular amounts to defendant. Stuart had pressed for a statement of the financial position but defendant had continually put him off with a result that awrit had been served. IMPLICIT FAITH. John James Stuart stated that he was a ship’s cook. In 1920 he had. conducted the Aotea Buffet and while in business met Hedgman, who was then a member of the police force. Witness was hit a little during the slump, and Hedgman often gave him advice. Defendant suggested that witness should sell the buii'et and a sale was effected in November 1921. Witness had about £475 after the buffet business had been settled, and Hedgman advised him to put this into a house in Ingestre Street with £llOO. With the balance he paid up some of his buffet debts and a sum of approximately £6O was left owing. Witness closed is bank account in December, when he drew a cheque for £4l 10s lid. Witness wanted to get away to New Plymouth so defendant suggested that he should circularise his creditors and pay 16s in the £l. This was agreed upon but £2O was still owing after the settlement. NOT LIKE DEALING WITH A STRANGER. Witness sent money regularly to defendant. Witness trusted the constable and found he was almost a« good as a father to him. He sent the money by registered mail, to which Hedgman had fully agreed. It was not like dealing with a stranger. Defendant in turn had made .certain payments to witness, but these had been credited. Witness, from time to, time, asked defendant how his affairs were, and received the reply that everything was ar! rfgth and he was not to worry. When witness told defendant that he intended to come ashore defendant advised him to keep his job and to make his first loss his last one. To His Honour: Defendant was to look after the money for witness but he was never told to invest it. Witness then went on to outline a timber transaction between Hedgman and himself. He had received no money whatever' from defendant. In reply to repeated requests as to his financial position plaintiff was told not to worry as everything was all right. Witness had put gome furniture and a bed in the hands of defendant for disposal hut he had heard nothing more of the sale. He did not know where his furniture was and he had received no money. Hedgman always, put him off by saying “everything its all right. Jack.”' After continued pressure witness resolved to interview a solicitor and as a result Mr. Treadwell communicated wil ldefendant. Defendant, when he next saw witness, said that he could have squared witness up if be had not lost, ou his Waitotara properly. “IT IS' A DELIBERATE LIE.” Under cross-examination by Mr. Barton witness said it was a lie for Hedgman to say lie had lent witness any money. Witness could not tell his exact financial position because Hedgman had ids hooks. Hedgman had never advanced money for legal expenses or medical expenses and he had never tried to clear up the financial questions asked by witness. Hedgman had led him by the nose all the time to his sorrow. Pressed further by counsel witness said it was a deliberate lie for defendant to say he had advanced money in October. 1925. His Honour: Have you a receipt for tho amount? Counsel: No, but there as an entry in defendant’s book. I-fh had borrowed no money from plaintiff, hut, on the other hand, had paid him £2O. Further questions asked by counsel regarding advances to plaintiff brought

forth the continued reply “It's a deliberate and down-right lie.” While witness was pressing Hedgman for a settlement he told Hedgman that lie (Hedgman) had £792, but defendant had shaken his head in denial. Taxed furter, Hedgman said he had no time to produce and go through the correspondence from witness. PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED. At this stage his Honour stopped proceedings and said it was most extraordinary that a police constable should have amounts like £5O, £BO, and £9O lying about his house to be paid out in the course of a couple of months. He was of the opinion that the items should be heard, before the registrar who would report whether there was or was not. any evidence. The points in dispute would be narrowed down then and tried. The ease was then adjourned tv Wel-lington.--Chronicle.