YOUNG MAN CHARGED.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16800, 19 May 1926, Page 6

YOUNG MAN CHARGED.

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES BY VALUELESS CHEQUES. A REMAND GRANTED. A stylishly dressed young man, attired in an expensive heavy grey overcoat of fashionable cut, stood"in the dock at Hamilton this morning, to answer two charges of false pretences. His name was Humbert Patrick Smith, and the charges against him were of obtaining £2O by means of a valueless chequejrom Smith’s Ltd., Wellington, and £l7 in the same manner from Roy Baddelly, manager of the Hamilton Hotel.

It was decide 1 to hear the evidence of a couple of witnesses who were present from Wellington. It was stated by the police that Mr Baddelly was ill and that in consequence an adjournment would have to be asked for on the Hamilton charge.

A c.leri- of the Bank of New South Wales, Wellington, named P. G. G. Lloyd, stated that accused and his wife formerly had a joint account at the bank up till April 15th last, when only 2s remained in credit.- On April 15th, accused entered the bank and said he had issued certain cheques in Dunedin, amounting to about £32. He asked if the hank would pay out this money if he paid the money into the account later. Witness told him he had better sec a solicitor. Later two cheques came into the Bank, which were dishonoured. Accused’s father-in-law, A. H. S. Finlayson, poulterer, of Vivian Street, Wellington, said accused lent him £IOO to put into the poultry business, on the understanding that if the business was a success he was to become a partner and if a failure, he was to be saddled with no liability. It was not true that witness owed accused £IOO or promised to place £9O to his credit by a certain date. Witness was put under a stiff crossexamination by Mr D. Seymour, for accused. Witness stated that formerly he was licensee of the New Zealander Hotel, Christchurch. He first met accused at the Terminus Hotel, Wellington, about two years ago. Accused was then living in Vivian Street, Wellington, but shortly afterwards went to live at the Terminus. Mr Seymour: And within a week of meeting your daughter he married her?—Yes. Mr Seymour; He was worth a fair bit of money at the time?—Yes. What was your own financial position? —Very bad. Mr Seymour: You encouraged him to go into the hotel business in Featherston?—Yes. lie put down a deposit of £IOO and your were to go in as manager?—Yes. When the deal fell through you induced him to put the £IOO into a poultry business?—Yes. Mr Seymour: What were the terms of this investment? Witness: If the bnsiness proved a success he was to become a partner. If a failure he was to be saddled with no liability. Mr Seymour: For several months your son-in-law was at Rotorua undergoing treatment, was he not?—Yes. t And while there his wife went to live there and also your wife? —Yes. And he paid all his own wife’s expenses and your wife's expenses while in Rotorua?—Yes. And while in Rotorua he advanced you sums of £25, £ls and £22 10s? I don’t remember the last sum. And you consider you owe your son-in-law nothing at the present time ? I paid £l7 10s to keep him out of trouble on one occasion. And has he still a share in the business? He knows as well as I do that the original business was really'bankrupt. Witness added that a well-known Wellington business man had now money in the business. lie did not want to mention his name as he might not like it.

Mr Seymour: Very well; say we refer to him as “Mr A.”

Witness' answers to further questions were of such an unsatisfactory nature that when he appealed to His Worship as to whether lie should answer a certain -question the Magistrate remarked that tie did not care very much what witness said. The position, added His Worship, seemed pretty clear. Here was a young man with money. Within less than a week of meeting witness’ daughter he married her. Accused got tho daughter and within a very short time the father-in-law had got tiie money. Accused had maintained himself, his wife, and his mother-in-law in Rotorua and had tent his father-in-law various sums of money. His Worship at this stage - asked if accused elected io be dealt with summarily. On replying in the affirmative and pleading not guilty, he was remanded on bail in the sum of £IOO till the 27th.