CHEQUES, BUT NO MONEY

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1932, Page 12

CHEQUES, BUT NO MONEY

MAN WHO GOT THE CHANGE HAD BEEN WARNED BY THE BANK. IMPRISONMENT AND HARD LABOUR Imprisonment for two months with hard labour was yesterday ordered for Cecil William Hutchinson, who appeared before Mr. R. W. Tate, SJM., and admitted that on October 19, with intent to defraud, he obtained from Emil Joseph Dean, New Plymouth, £4 3s in money by means of a valueless cheque for £4 5s 6d drawn on the Union Bank of Australia, Auckland. Hutchinson had opened an account at the bank at Auckland in connection with a transport service conducted by him in partnership with another man between Auckland and New Plymouth, said Detective Meiklejohn. On the data 6f the charge he gave Dean a cheque for £4 5s 6d and obtain £4 3s in change after paying 2s for a meal and 6d for exchange. The cheque was subsequently returned marked “Refer to drawer.” The transport business was started on August 10 and it was agreed later by the partners that Hutchinson should sign the cheques drawn on the bank account. The account was opened with £3 and there had never been more than £4 Ils 9d in it at one time. Cheques were returned because there was not sufficient money to meet them and he .was warned the account would have to be closed if the position did not improve. In September the bank manager told him the account would be closed, but it was continued on the understanding that it would be closed upon the presentation of the first cheque for which there was insufficient funds. Hutchinson had issued 10 cheques totalling £59 14s, but this was the only bne on which a charge was being brought. When interviewed he said he knew there was not enough money to meet it and admitted having been warned. On May 24 at Napier he had been before the Court on four charges of false pretences, the offences being similar to this one. He was then admitted to probation for a year. He was still On probation. He was a married man, aged 25, and apart from these offences nothing was known against him.

Mr. A. A. Bennett said that Hutchinson had one child. In view of the fact that the offence was committed after the offences at Napier and that Hutchinson was on probation at the time of the last offence, counsel did not suggest that he should not be imprisoned, but asked that only a short term should be imposed. Hutchinson’s explanation was that he intended to be in Auckland himself when the cheque reached there so that he could lodge the money for payment Unfortunately, upon his arrival he found himself confronted by some unforeseen circumstances. His waggon had been seized—he said improperly—and he had to set about arranging for its release. The result was that he had failed to find the money to pay into the bank account.

The magistrate asked if the transport service mentioned was under the licensing authority. Mr. Bennett replied it was not, as it was a goods service, but he understood it was shortly to be brought under the provisions of the Act. In suggesting that if a short term of gaol were imposed counsel said that if it had been a passenger service there would have been some difficulty about resuming the service owing to the break in the service. Mr. Tate said the case presented a serious feature in that the man was on probation. Not only had he committed this offence, but he had also committed a breach of his probation. In the circumstances it was difficult to deal leniently with him.