MONEY FOR NOTHING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 188, 11 August 1931, Page 5

MONEY FOR NOTHING

FALSE PRETENCES CHARGE ACCUSED TO BF SENTENCED. After a retirement of nearly three hours the jury at the Supreme Court yesterday found Edward Scott guilty of false pretences in that he obtained £4O by falsely stating that he had obtained a contract foi stumping 70 acres at £l4 an acre. Accused pleaded not guilty and was remanded until JO a.m. to-morrow for sentence. His Honour, Mr Justice Blair said that accused had a very bad record, having committed similar crimes since 1920. Mr B. C. Haggitt appeared for accused, Mr N. R. Bain, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution. The jury was:—Vai Biggin (foreman), William Albert Rudolph David son, Thomas George Benge, Albert Henry Skilton, Raymond John Hastings, Herbert Silas Goldthorpe, Daniel Kellahan, Leonard Charles Ferris, Robert Pedley, Frank Delves, Leslie Jury and lan Sewell. Accused came to his office about March 12, in Ohakune, said Albert William Gould, solicitor. Accused told him that he had made a verbal agreement with Thomas Austin for tho stumping of 70 acres of land at £l4 an acre. Witness drew up an agreement for the contract at accused’s request. Accused said he wished to buy a share in a Canadian stumper and asked for a L4O loan. Witness introduced accused to Air Baird, after telling Mr Baird about the request of accused for a loan. When witness returned to Air Baird he said “What do you think of it?” Air Baird said he would loan the money if an order were made on the proceeds of the contract. Accused later received the cheque for £4O from Air Baird. Accused said he would bring Air Austin along on Alonday morning to sign the contract. Air Austin did not turn up, and witness did not see him from that day until he saw accused-in the Magistrate ’s Court.

Cross-examined by Air Haggitt, witness said he was certain that the cheque was not handed over until accused had signed the order. He knew that when the money was handed over, Austin had signed nothing. Witness thought tha 4- it was a bona fide contract as he had been asked to prepare the contract in triplicate.

Willie Somerville Baird, retired farmer, living at the Argonaut Hotel, Ohakune, said he loaned the money on Air Gould’s suggestion. Witness outlined the circumstances surrounding the giving of the loan. Air Gould had said “it was a good thing.” If Air Gould had not said that he would not have given the loan. Kenneth Alexander Roberts, teller in the Bank of New Zealand, at Ohakune, said that he recognised a produced cheque, which had been paid out in eight £5 notes. He could not recollect to whom the money had been paid. The cheque was made out on Afarch 14 and paid on that day.

Thomas Austin, farmer of Rangitaua, four miles from Ohakune, said a person resembling the accused had come to the door of his house. He had invited him in to have breakfast. Witness said he had told the man that if everything went all right there would be some stumping on his farm if a Chinaman could finance the work. Witness told the Judge that he was sure there had been no arrangement made with the accused or anybody else about stumping. Accused had seen witness twice subsequently. At one time they had taken a walk over the land and witness and accused had talked about the stumping of the land. Witness said that the letting of any stumping contract would have been no concern of his, as he was only leasing the land. The Crown Prosecutor did not address the jury. In his address to the jury, Air Hag gitt said there were two points: AVhether the accused had made any false pretence, and whether that had induced Air Baird to part with his money. It was not false yn-etenecs by making a promise for the future—it was then a case for a civil action, which he held was the proper course in the present case. His Honour said that accused had said that he had made a verbal contract with Austin for the stumping. It might have been that when accused had seen Air Gould he was unduly optimistic, said Mr Haggitt. Air Haggitt held that Air Gould had made statements to his client about the loan saying that it was a “good thing.” His Honour: That is the charm of the thing—that is why it was successful. His Honour said that there had been written instructions for the contract to

be drawn up. 'he statement had been made and it was proved to be a fabrication. At first he had tried to get the £4O from the solicitor. Tho whole was a device to get £4O, and he got it. The accused had obtained the cheque, rushed across to the bank, cashed it into £5 notes—disappeared. There was not a single suggestion otherwise. He thought the case was one which would present very little difficulty to the jury.