2-/O
to poy the bolance by instolment? The Defendont
,}
foiled to explqin why he acted in this monner if he
did not obtain the surn of N2 ,49D,000.00 by folse
pretence f rom the pW1.
My Lords, hoving regard to existence
of exhrbit
AZ in evidence which by necessory implicotion
qmounts
to confessionol staternent ond the foct
thot Defendont octuolly poid N400,000.00 to the
PW1 being
port of
NZ,495,OOO.OO obtoined from
t
PW1 under pretences to purchose woste
evqcuotion truck thot foiled ond the
fact thot the
Defendont f ailed to explain why he mode poym ent
of N400,000.00 to pwl ond promised to liquidate
the bolqnce in f ive instolments in o tronsoction he
dERTIFIED TRu I GOP'
r{AMEV"-tJ-"
49
ilgN-.
*it
.:llTE_,.
FED
r{fG
WARRI
d