JUDGMENTBY: RIGBY J

The accused in this case was convicted on two charges preferred against him of cheating, contrary to the provisions of section 420 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment on each charge, such sentences to run concurrently.

The particulars of those two charges were that on the 10th and 13th April, 1957, the accused cheated a shopkeeper by dishonestly inducing him to deliver to him sundry goods to the total value of $ 50 and $ 70 respectively.

The brief facts of the case were that on the 10th April, 1957, the accused, already a customer at the shop and known to the shopkeeper for about a year previously, went into the shop, ordered sundry goods and said that he wanted them on credit. The shop-keeper declined to give him credit, whereupon the accused gave him a postdated cheque for $ 50. According to the complainant shop-keeper the accused, at the time of giving him the cheque, said that he would have money in the Bank on the 15th April and the cheque could be cashed on that day.

On the 13th April the accused again came to the shop, purchased $ 70 worth of goods and gave the complainant a postdated cheque for that amount dated the 18th April, 1957. It is worthy of note that on this occasion the complainant did not demur to supplying goods on credit and apparently was perfectly willing to accept the postdated cheque. According to him the accused told him that he could cash the cheque on the 18th April, 1957.

The complainant subsequently negotiated -- or attempted to negotiate -- both cheques through third parties and both were duly returned to him dishonoured.

The prosecution called evidence that on the 10th April, 1957, the accuseds Bank account was $ 7.03 in credit and that it remained at that figure on the 13th April. On the 2nd May the accuseds monthly salary cheque of $ 228.50 was paid in to the credit of his account and on the same day the accused drew out two cheques in the sums of $ 100 and $ 115 respectively.

At all material times the accused was, to the knowledge of the complainant, employed in the Public Works Department, Butterworth.

The complainant stated in evidence that after the cheques had been returned to him dishonoured, during the months of April, May, June and July, he several times asked the accused for payment but the accused put him off by saying he would pay him on pay day. Notwithstanding this fact, however, it is manifest that the complainant was still content to supply the accused with goods on credit and, according to his own evidence, during the months of June and July he supplied him with goods to the value of $ 173.70, for which the accused paid $ 35 at the end of June and $ 80 at the beginning of July, leaving a debit balance of $ 58.70. According to the complainant, he allowed the accused such credit on the strength of a statement by the accused that he was expecting a loan of $ 1,500 from the Public Works Department. It may be, of course, that the accused had, in fact, applied for such a loan and had reasonable expectation of being granted it. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary.

On the 7th August, 1957, the complainant made his complaint to the Police in respect of the non-payment of the two cheques, and on the 17th September the accused was arrested on a Warrant of Arrest on these charges and produced before the Court.

The accused was unrepresented at his trial before the learned President. At his trial he denied that he had any intention of cheating the complainant. He said that the cheques were supposed to be presented at the end of the month; that when he was informed that they had been dishonoured he paid $ 115 to the complainant, on account therefor, in three amounts, two during May and one during June. He said that thereafter in July the complainant allowed him credit to the extent of $ 173 and it was only after he had lost his employment with the Public Works Department and consequently was not in a position to settle h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document