AU.STRALIA3N NEWS.;

West Coast Times, Issue 8074, 13 February 1891, Page 4

AUSTRALIAN NEWS.

(Via the Bluff,)

A singular case of fraud was brought to light at the Central Police Court, Sydney, ; when Frank Churton was charged with defrauding William Dymockpf Ll2 10a. Dymock has a large book warehouse in George street, and the accused came and offered to effect an insurance of L2OOO on tbe stock to rates considerably below what the companies quoted. He explained that he was able to do this because he was prepared to forego bis commission, staling ' that the fact of hi* securing 3uch a large Jive would indirectly pay him well. He ; subsequently brought round and introduced a man named Karruish, whom he described as the manager of the New South Wales Insurance Company. Mr Dymock then gave a cheque for Ll2 10s. in part payment of the amount of his premium, and shortly afterwards learnt . that no such company existed. The i accused was committed for trial. |

The defence fund which was started \ under the auspices of the Employers' j Union during the recent strike is being placed on a permanent basis. Wben the strike was virtually over the Emnjoyers' Defence Fund Committee devoted a large amount of time to consider what should be done with tbe surplus funds, and whether the numerous promises of financial aid would be realised. After careful consideration, it waa decided to recommend that an employers' mutual defence association, under the guidance of five trustees, should be appointed. This recommendation was brought before the last meeting of the Employers' Union and approved. It was further decided to accord the Association every support by forwarding to the members of the Employers' Union a circular explaining tbe objects and benefits to accrue from the Association. This circular has been . lrawn up. The main object of tbe fund — which it is hoped will be raised to about LIOO,OO0 — is to indemnify members of the Association againat luss by strikes, and to assure them of support in case of labor troubles. Tbe Association, it is understood, is purely one for defensive purposes, and by no means established for aggressive action. Employers have so far accorded the project a large measure of support, and seem to think that the Association will greatly strengthen their cause. An advertl in.- dodpe ot au audacious character was ™c- pefrafed by a man nameu : William Ba'ra't, who was brought up at the Melbourne City Court rec ntly on obarges of fbttining £10 by false pretences from Mr tieorge Weight, and obtaining £8 under similar circum.tunces from Mr Kobect Waugh. Evi^-nce was given that aocu-ed inserted an advertise" ment in one of the moron g pap**' f>r the services of a cishier a<* bookkeeper. The advertisement stated that a security wouldbe required. Tbe accused received a number ot application!*, and amongtt others from the complainants io this case. The replies to the advertisement wereaint to an address ia Ball ar at, and as a mark of good faith on the part of tbe applicants they were asked to remit a num cf £3, which wonld be returned io u-cjn on the accused meeting them >n Melbourne. Both complainants complied with this condition, and both had separata inter* viewß with him in Melbourne. Tbe accused decided to engage botb men, and a regular agreement was drawn i? and given to each complainant. The accused explained that he was the re ,>i . neatative of Messrs Bowen, J-nes and Co., of Allendale, in whose servioe toe applicants were expected to discharge managerial as well as,clerioal duties. On tbe completion of e&wi agreement the applicants were induced to part with furtner sums of money, making the total sum (with the £3 each already paid) of £10 and £fi respectively. They were instructed to begia their duties at Allecdale on December 10, but when the complainants reached th<tt township they discovered ! that the firm of Messrs Bowen, Jones and Co. was ao invention of the accused j Defective Fryer, who w^b entrusted with the execution ot the warrant for the arrest of tbe accused, traced him to iSandtmrit, and with the information supplied by him, the police in that town succeeded in having him arrested. The pris ncr pleaded guilty to the charges laid against him aod 1 was commit 1 ed for trial.

The other day Margaret Rosenberg was committed for trial at Fitzroy oa a charge of bigamy. It app'ared that on the 2nd of September. 1886, tbe accused was married to a tram conductor named Bernard Rosenberg, by Mr Nathaniel Kinsman, at his residence, Moor street, Fitzroy, the witnesses be ug William Duxbury, an. inspector in the employ of the Tramway Company, and Mary Jago, a domestic servant in the service of Mr Kinsman. The union proved a most ill-sorted one, and a few weeks before the birth of her first child, Mrs Rosenberg left her husband, who was then following the occupation of commercial t a velltr in Adelaide. A few months later the accused, wbo was leading an abandoned life in th.it city, made the acquaintance of & 1 .borer named John Conr"y, w.th wbom she cohabited for eleven months. Subse* quently Conroy and the accused came to ' Victoria, and shortly after their arrival Cooroy married the accused on the sth June, 1890, Mr Nathaniel Kinsman performing the marriage &eremony. Jf.oßeu» berg, being ib forme a of toe second marriage a lew ttontbs afterwards, instituted the present proceedings. It was stated for tiie defendant that shortly after Baaenberg was married to tbe accused be to!d her in sn unguarded moment that he had previously been married at Cape Town, and that his firat wife was still living, Mrs Rusenberg, believing that ber marriage was a sham. It ft ber husband and subsequently raarr ed Conroy.