QUALITY OF TIMBFR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 88, Issue 35, 11 February 1944, Page 3

QUALITY OF TIMBFR

MAN ON TRIAL IN CHRISTCHURCH ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES (P.A.) Christchurch, Feb. 10. A submision that there was no case to go to a jury was made by Mt. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., counsel for the accused in the Supreme Court trial this morning of Wilfred Henry Banks, manager of the Papanui Timber Co., on a charge of attempting to obtain £2BO Is 3d from the United States Joint Purchasing Board by a false pretence, that the quality of timber supplied was higher than in fact it was. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence of personal knowledge of the accused of the alleged false pretence, and asked Mr. Justice Northcroft to direct the jury accordingly. The Judge said he was not prepared at this stage to withdraw the case from the jury, or give a direction for acquittal. Cross-examined this morning, James Frederick Lysaght, officer ot the State Forest Service, who examined the timber in dispute, said an amended valuation brought the amount concerned to £286 9s 7d. Detective-Sergeant James McClung, said that, with Lysaght, he interviewed Banks on June 3, and asked if he (Banks) had supervised the getting out of the orders. Banks declined to answer. He also declined to answer when asked if he had bought any second-grade timber. When an inspection was made of the timber, as he had nothing to say as to whether the condemnation by Lysaght was wrong or unfair, he said the timber with the nail holes in it apparently got in by mistake. Opening for the defence, Mr. O’Leary said he agreed with the statement of the Crown Prosecutor that it was a case of great importance, not only to the Crown, but to the accused. He took exception, however, to Mr. Brown’s statement that “some person, or persons, had almost succeeded in a cruel, shameful and cowardly fraud on Allies who are fighting’Sb magnificently on our side." Though he had protested against, it at the time, said counsel, the Court had ruled that Mr. Brown was entitled to make it. Mr. O’Leary contended that the statement had been made to laise prejudice and animosity against the accused. The case was not to be dealt with by a jury bv prejudice and indignation, on the one side, or sympathy or sentimentality on the other. When a jury had heard the evidence of the defence it might well be that they would regard it. as a cruel prosecution. Mr. O’Leary said it would be shown that there had been an unusual demand for timber during the last year, with a result that it had been delivered in Christchurch as quickly as possible. There had also been great difficulty in obtaining labour for the yards. Consequently, Banks had had to rely on inexperienced men for classifying the timber. Doubtless some of the timber got into the wrong “pockets" in the yards. The order in question was a rush order. That fact had not been disputed. On some nights men were working on it until 11 p.m. “The Crown's case is based on Lysaght’s grading, but we do not accept that grading as acceptable to timber s, builders and other practical men,’ said Mr. O’Leary, who also emphasised that the regulations by which Lysaght had graded had no legal force, and, in any case, were not accepted by all in the trade, and particularly in Christchurch. Lysaght had rejected far more of the timber than practical men in the trade would have done. There was great divergence in views as to grading held by the trade, and Lysaght. The latter, it would be submitted, had been “altogether too sweeping.” Evidence was given by Frederick John Andrews, yardsman at the company’s Papanui Road yard, and by the accused, Banks. The accused said in evidence that he was in partnership with his father and brother in the Papanui Timber Company, and he also had a similar interest with his brother in the North Canterbury Timber Company. He stated that the order for the Americans had been a rush one. and he was not present when the loading took place, as he was then on holidays. Being short-handed in his office, witness added, he had not been able to supervise the dispatch of the order. The Court adjourned at this stage to enable the jury to inspect the, timber. “As this case may have excited i some interest outside." said Mr. Jus-' tice Northcroft, T want you to under-, stand that you must not discuss it! with anyone. No outsider is to discuss it with you, ho we wr harmlessly." i The case resumes to-morrow. I