THEFT OF CHEQUE

Waikato Times, Volume 123, Issue 20639, 28 October 1938, Page 8

THEFT OF CHEQUE

LABOURER CHARGED I REFERENCE TO BOOK-MAKINQ ALLEGATIONS BY WITNESSES Arising out of the disappearance from a postal-box at Gisborne on July 19 last of a cheque for £l3O, Clarence Desmond Lawless 42', labourer, of Gisborne (Mr J. F. Strang), was arraigned in the Supreme Court. Hamilton, on three charges, of theft of the cheque, of receiving a stolen cheque and of obtaining clothing valued at £2 12s 6d and another cheque for £127 7s 6d in exchange, for a cheque which he knew to he stolen. Accused pleaded not guilty to each charge. Messrs H. T. Gillies and J. R. FitzGerald appeared for the Crown and Mr Justice Blair presided. Opening the case for Crown. Mr Gillies stated that on July 18 a Whakatane tobacconist. Josr#-»h Plamus. posted a cheque for £l3O to J. V. Hignett. of Gisborne. The latter, who shared a post-office box with another man. J. Sheriden. did not receive the cheque. On July 19. the cheque was in accused’s possession at Whakatane and was given by him to a mercery firm in payment for goods. A cheque received by him in change was cashed at t-he bank and the question for the jury was whether accused held the cheque honestly or dishonestly. Allegations by Witness Plamus stated In evidence that the cheque sent to Hignett represented a loan of £l3O for the purchase of a car. Cross-examined, witness said the postal-box to which the cheque was sent was rented in Sheridan’s name. Hignett was a business agent of witness at Gisborne, his predecessor in that office being Sheridan. The car was to help Hignett in his work. Witness did not know that Sheridan had been fined £3O at Gisborne, but stated that Sheridan had “beaten” him for £ i 88 which he owed witness. Witness admitted saying to some people at the hearing at Whakatane that he beb'eved Sheridan had got away with the cheque. Sheridan had beaten him for money and witness drew his own conclusions. Joseph Yarian Hignett. a mechanic, said he and Sheridan held the only keys to the postal-box and witness cleared his mail almost every day. Witness corroborated the evidence of Plamus regarding their business relationship and the loan for the car. Witness did not know accused, even by sight, before the proceedings. Cross-examined, witness said he did not, purchase the agency from Sheridan. Witness was of the opinion that, accused should not be. charged with the theft, since Sheridan was the only person witness told about the coming of the cheque. Questioned by Mr Strang as to what he would say if Sheridan were prepared to give evidence that Hignett was a bookmaker, witness said he would consider such a statement indicative of “dirt.” Shortly before the disappearance of the cheque, Plamus had re-possessed a car used by Sheridan. Plamus also warned witness to watch Sheridan, as he had beaten Plamus for money. Witness understood it was about £3ll that Sheridan owed Plamus. The car was Plamus' property. Suggestion of Alibi On. the morning on which the cheque was missed from the box, witness and Sheridan went, out shooting about 6.30 or 7 a.rn. Witness now knew that if the cheque had arrived in the ordinary way he could have cleared it from the box before going out shooting. He believed the outing had been arranged by Sheridan so that he could say that he bad been out shooting with witness. Witness knew a man named James John Stevens. He was supposed to he nn insurance agent and the night before (July 18) Sheridan rang witness asking him if be wanted to make a bet on a boxing match at Auckland. Sheridan said Stevens wanted to back one of the boxers. Stevens won the bet, : witness losing and Sheridan went to see Stevens after the shooting expedition. Witness did not know Stevens’ movements on the night of July- 18 or the next morning. Detective G. A. McWhirter. of. Gisborne. stated that he visited accused on July 22. Accused was in his bedroom and appeared to be recovering from the effects of a drinking bout. Witness asked a woman in accused’s presence where the latter had been that, week and she said he had been working on the wharf. Just at that moment accused said: “Shut your mouth, don’t tell him anything.” Witness later arrested accused In respect of the theft of the cheque and on hearing the charge, accused said he did not know why witness was always chasing him. Accused had only worked on the Monday* morning of the week on the wharf. An afternoon mail from Whakatane to Gisborne closed at 5 p.m. and was carried by freight-lorry, arriving in Gisborne between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. It was in the post-office boxes not later than 8 a.m. Cross-examined, witness said he did not search accused’s home. Witness had previously spoken to accused about not being in regular employment. Accused Made Use Of? As far as witness could remember, accused had no money in his posses- , sion when searched after arrest. Witness considered that accused had “been made use of." Balfour White, ledger clerk employed by the Bank of New Zealand. Whakatane, stated that accused went into the bank on the afternoon of July 9. He gave witness a cheque which witness marked for rash. Witness had known accused some years, in Gisborne. To Mr Strang, witness said there was nothing secretive or furtive in accused’s demeanour. John Joseph Scott, bank toller, of Whakatane, gave evidence of the oash•mg of tiie second cheque. He did not remember who cashed it. (Proceeding .