THEFT OF TWO CHEQUES

Taranaki Daily News, 18 December 1930, Page 12

THEFT OF TWO CHEQUES

WRONGFUL ENDORSEMENT MADE. LABOURER IN HAWERA COURT. ■ ; •■-——• . ,*V ’ " ■ Pleading guilty to two charges of theft and one of endorsing a cheque George Crompton Mansfield, farm labourer, was yesterday committed to the Supreme Court at Wellington for sentence. He appeared im the Hawera Police Court before Messrs. G. A. Burgess and R. L.‘ Sage, J.’sP., on remand from* Auckland. The charges alleged that on or about November 25 at Ohangai Mansfield committed theft of a cheque drawn on. the Bank of New South Wales, Hawera, payable to H. Frahm and signed for o the Meremere Co-onerative Dairy Co.; that op or about November 25 he committed the theft of a cheque drawn on 'the Bank of New Zealand, Hawera, for £l6 18s Id, .payable to H. Frahm and signed for th® Melrose Dairy Co.; that on November 26, without lawful authority, he endorsed the name of \H. Frahm to a cheque, and, knowing- it to be so endorsed, uttered it to A, H. Shaw, Hawera, yith the. intention that it should b©. ad©d upon as genuine. A. charge relating to the theft of a postal packet was withdrawn at the request of the police, Albert Kemball Fyson, secretary, for the Meremere. and Melrose Dairy Companies, said bdth cheques were marked “hot negotiable.” These cheques were usually posted or. called for ; about the 20th or 24th of each month. ’The cheque/ were payable to H. Frahm, Ohangai, and Frahm was the only person who could negotiate them. On November 24 witness had received a telephone message from Frahm, who - had not received his cheques, and had replied that; the cheques had been post-

ed. - . .. 1 • \ > Henry John August Frahm said he did the-carrying for the Meremere and Melrose Bh ir y Companies, for which-he was paid by cheque about the 20th of each month, receiving separate cheques from each A company. Sometimes »we cheques were posted and sometimes he called for them. Both were usually in tha one envelope. When lie had not received the cheques on November 24 he had communicated with the secretary, 'the cheques prodiiced had not bepn received or cashed by’witness or by his iitlthority. The endorsement orr th® back was not in ,his handwriting. It was. his name . but 5 not‘ his signature. Witness had never,seen accused before. He could not say how the cheques came jhto Mansfield’s; possession. . To accused.(who was not-represented by counsel): It was about the 24thwhen I rang Mr, Fyson but I /am not sure of the day. David Strachan said he had seen accused for the first time when he had come into the shop. That had been, on a Wednesday, morning, probably November 2-6. Mansfield had purchased a suit of. clothes, hat, overcoat, socks, tic, collar and handkerchiefs. The goods were to the value of £l4 I2s Qd and in payment the cheque on the Bank of New Zealand for £l6 18s Id had been tendered. The cheque was on the MclroseDairy Company and payable, to H. Frahm. Ho had deducted the value of the goods, giving the balance to aecusecl in cash. Accused hud mentioned* that he was staying .at t]m Somerset boarding-house. As soon as Mansfield had left the shop witness had remembered that most dairy company cheques were made to order so he had gone to the till, finding that the cheque was payable to H. Frahm and had not been endorsed! ■" He had then rung Fyson, describing the- man who had. tendered the cheque, and this had not tallied kvith Mr. Fyson's description of Frahm. Witness had .then goiie to Somerset House, seeing accused in his bedroom. He had demanded', the clothes and the change and accused had made ho demur, asking for the cheque, which witness had refused to give him. Witness had said he was going to give the cheque to the. police as be suspeetd that it was stolen. He had returned with the police to the boarding-house but accused had gone. In the shop Mansfield had said he had a cheque' for £2l mid'.and had asked for it to.be cashed but - witness had been unable to cash it. . , Accused: Ar© you in th© habit pt • ’ ing with cheques? Witness: Yes. ... <. Yet you tok that cheque without en-dorsement.-—Yes, by mistake. Do you often make mistakes like that? —Not very often. Arthur Harry Shaw, mercer, Hawera, said he had never seen Mansfield until one Wednesday morning he had asked if he pould get a cheque cashed. He had submitted the- cheque for £2l (Is 3d. Witness had looked at the back and found it not endorsed. He had asked accused if he was Frahm, the reply being in the affirmative, He had then asked accused to endorse the cheque, which he had done in witness’ presence; Aceusd had bought goods to the value of £3 9s fid, shoes, pyjamas And a shirt. Witness had given accused a £5 note, and an open cheque for £l2 16s 9d. Witness had been notified that, payment on the cheque he had received- from accused had been stopped. His own had been cashed. .

Accused was proceeding to ask witness the questions put to Strachan when their relevancy was questioned by the bench and he , did not persist, .Constable Lemm produced a statement made by accused endorsed, “I read this statement and it is.correct and made of my own free will’ 4 and signed, accused’s statement set out that he arrived at IJawera from Opuhake on the evening ot 'November 34. He went to Meremere, stayed there a night, milked for a sharemilker and left the following morning for Hawera. On the way he met a swagger, who, after a general conversation, asked him if he could do with two cheques which were handed over. On? was for £l6 18s Id and one for £2l 6s 3d. Accused went into a clothier’s shop, purchasing a complete outfit, the cheque for £l6 18s Id which he did not endorse being tendered for payment. Ho went to another clothier’s shop and purchased a pair of shoes and a shirt. The amount of the pur-chase was about £3 and he tendered the cheque for £2l 6s 3d. The shopkeeper asked him if his name was Frahm, the name of the cheque payee, and he said “yes.” He was asked to endorse the cheque, which he did in the shopkeper’s presence. The change was a £5 note and a cheque, which accused cashed immediately, for the balance. He went to Somerset House where he was changing into the clothes he had bought when the first shopkeeper walked into the room and took the clothes from him. He gave the change to the shopkeeper, who kept the cheque

and said he was going to the police. Accused changed back into his own clothes and left the-town as soon as he could, taking a taxi to Stratford.