“A FOOLISH ACTION”

Taranaki Daily News, 2 October 1929, Page 16

“A FOOLISH ACTION”

ACCUSED ADMITS ERROR. FICTITIOUS LETTER. Dunedin, Sept. 30. A charge against Donald Hutcheson of-; fraudulently stating that he had posted; a packet' containing .money, knowing; that he had not done so, w’as dismissed •in the Magistrate’s Court this morfiing. Evidence was given by two postal clerks-at Balclutha, ’who’ stated' that: when accused called at the office there on August 20 he complained that a registered letter which he had posted had not been received. Alan Alexander Noble, postal clerk at Dunedin, said that on August 24 he interviewed the accused, who told him that he had registered a letter to his w r ife on August 14, and his wife had not received it. He said the letter contained bank notes to the value of 30s. On August 31 witness saw accused again, and he still contended that he had posted the letter and repeated his previous statement. He told witness that when he called at the Balclutha Post Office on August 20 the clerk said he remembered selling accused the envelope. Accused made a statement, which he signed, and in which he admitted he had not posted the letter on August 14, but lie thought he had done so, and was very sorry that ho said he had done so. The office records showed that accused’s wife had received several registered letters. If satisfactory evidence of the posting of letters was produced the. department would pay compensation to the extent of £2 for a lost registered letter. Mr. Hanlon, who appeared for accused, submitted that the case must be dis- | missed, as no element of fraud had been 'disclosed. ’ Fraudulently meant dishonestly, and the question really was whether accused had dishonestly made that statement knowing it to be false. Counsel submitted that accused did not make the statement knowing it to be false, because ho honestly believed he had posted the letter. Mr. Hanlon commended the action of the police in the matter. They had been particularly fair, and it was quite obvious that when accused made the statement that he had posted the letter he thought he had done so, but he was sorry. The onus was on the prosecution to. prove that he had made the statement dishonestly, but he had not done so. The magistrate said it was a foolish action on accused’s part to make a statement that he had posted the letter without foundation. He did not think he would be justified in holding that a prima facie case had been established. The charge would be dismissed.