STARTLING EVIDENCE GIVEN

Taranaki Daily News, 11 August 1932, Page 5

STARTLING EVIDENCE GIVEN

ALLEGATION of counterfeiting,

WITNESS ANSWERS QUESTIONS.

By Telegraph.—Press Association., Auckland, Last Night. Evidence in a Supreme Court case took an unusual turn during the cross-exam-ination of a witness to-day. Phillip Solomons, aged 45, printer, was charged with aiding and - counselling two men, Morton and Gousmett, to commit the crime of false pretences by cashing value l less cheques. ' Morton and Gousmett, who are now in prison for* other offences, were called as Crown witnesses. Morton in- evidence yesterday made reference to a man named Parker and said that he and Gousmett went to Parker to borrow a sack. He refused to say why they wanted the sack, but said that a portion of the money ho received by cashing one cheque was given to Parker. Gousmett in evidence to-day was'asked why he went to Parker’s place. He replied, “You should ask Solomons.” Counsel for the defence: “I want you to tell us.” ... Witness; "Do I have to answer 1” His Honour: “Yes, you must.” Witness: “It was just to see if some thing that was being made was finished.” His Honour: “What was it?” . Witness protested that it had nothing to do? with the case. His. Honour: “"What was it?” Witness: “Banknotes.” His Honour: “The. banknotes were being made by whom?” Witness: “Parker and Solomons.” . The judge asked if witness was referring to the time when a lot of counterfeit notes were circulated in Auckland. Witness replied that he was referring to new notes. After some further questioning the foreman of the jury asked if the evidence of Parker could be taken. The Crown Solicitor: “I don’t know Parker at all. He has not been examined for the purposes of the police case in this matter. Maybe the police would regard him as a hostile witness.” The judge replied to the foreman: “I don’t know whether he is available or not. It is impossible for me to say. However, he is not to be called, and you have to decide the case on the evidence given.” Counsel for Solomons submitted that outside of Morton and Gousmett there was no evidence against accused. Both witnesses were admitted criminals and were accomplices, not only in this but in other cases.

After a retirement of three and a half hours the jury returned a verdict of guilty against Solomons on the charge of aiding and counselling the commission of a crime. Sentence was postponed.