Charges of Forgery.

Colonist, Volume XLI, Issue 9281, 20 September 1898, Page 2

Charges of Forgery.

Frederick George Newman was again brought before Mr Robinson, Stipendiary Magistrate, at ten o'clock yesterday morning, on remand, on five charges of forgery in respect of promissory notes discounted by him. The first case was in respect of a promissory note, dated 26th August, purporting to be signed by W. A. Bougnton and undertaking to pay to J. H. Newman and Son the sum of £56. Sergeant Mackay appeared for the Police and conducted the prosecution. He called, James Barton Sadd, who stated: On the 26th August last I discounted for accused a promissory note for £56 signed " W. A. Boughton " and made payable to " J. H. Newman and Son," or order. I produce the document, which is endorsed '• J. H. Newman and Son," and I believe the endorsement to be in the handwriting of accused. I am fairly familiar with the signature of Mr Boughton, and I had no reason to doubt this was not his true signature. I paid accused £53 15s, by cheque, No. 10458 on the Bank of New South Wales, dated 26th August, and made payable to J. H. Newman and Son. This took place at my own house. Accused did not make any reference to Mr Boughton's signature at the time. Had I any doubt as to the genuiness of the signature, I certainly would not have been satisfied with the endorsement of accused. Accused has not had any conversation with me relative to the signature of Mr Boughton. I don't mind telling what did occur regarding this matter, and it was this : — On Saturday, the 10th September last, I went to the office of accused and I asked him " are not some of these notes genuine ?" He replied simply in two words " not one." Cross-examined by Mr Maginnity: He gave me all the information I then asked for. No more was said : he answered me all I asked. By the Magistrate: When I referred to " these notes " I referred to several notes held by me, which included the one in question. He could not possibly have misunderstood me. Sergt. Mackay said that he would recall Mr Sadd later. William Ashton Eoughton, storekeeper : I have known accused probablp six or seven years. I have not had at anytime business with accused which would cause me to give him a promissory note. The signature to the bill produced is not mine. Accused has had opportunity of seeing my signature. I am not indebted to accused in anyway, nor have I given authority to anyone to use my signature. Undoubtedly the signature is a forgery. By the Magistrate: There is not another person of the same name and initials as my own, as far as I am aware, in Nelson. John Allan Preshaw, manager of the Bank of New South Wales, produced cheque No 10,458 for £53 15s, referred to in Mr Sadd's evidence. The cheque was cashed coming from the Union Bank in exchange on the.27th Aug. The endorsement was J. H. Newman and Son, bnt I could not swear to the handwriting. J. B, Sadd (recalled) : The cheque produced is that given by me when discounting the promissory note, and the endorsement I believe to be that of accused. This closed the evidence, and accused reserving his defence, was committed to take his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. The next charge was in respect of a promissory note, dated 15th June, for £49 10s, purporting to by signed by W. A. Boughton, and payable to J. H. Newman & Son. Sergeant Mackay said that the evidence would be the same in all the cases. The Magistrate said that the informations being separate, the evidence would require to be gone through in each instance. Mr Sadd gave evidence that he discounted the note, giving in exchange a cheque for £47 10s, No. 8318. Messrs Boughton and Preshaw gave evidence similar to that in the previous charge, and accused was committed for trial. A third charge in respect of a promissory note for £48, dated 22nd August, purporting to be signed by Ernest E. Trask, was then proceeded with. Mr Sadd gave evidence that he discounted this note, giving a cheque for £46 in return. Ernest E. Trask stated that he never had any business necessitating his giving accused a promissory note, and the signature to the one in question was not his. Mr Presbaw's evidence was taken, and accused was committed for trial. The fourth charge was in respect of a promissory note for £50, dated 14th July, purporting to be signed by Louis Kerr, payable to J. H. Newman <fe Son. Mr Sadd gave evidence that he discounted the note, giving a cheque for £48 in return. Louis Kerr, watchmaker, stated that he had not at anytime business relations with accused, which would cause him to give accused a promissory note for £50. The signature to the note was not his. Mr Preshaw gave evidence, and accused was committed for trial. The fifth charge was in respect of a promissory note for £50, dated 24th August last, also purporting to be signed by Louis Kerr. The evidence was similar to that in the previous charge, and accused was committed for trial. Mr Maginnity then asked the Court to fix the amount of bail. His Worship said that he would allow the same bail as in the previous cases, which would be : Accused in £100 and two sureties of £50 each in respect of each case, which would mean £700 in the aggregate on the whole of the charges before the Court. If he made it more it would be prohibitive, and he was not disposed to make it less. Sergeant Mackay said that he considered the bail was light — considerably too light — that was his opinion. His Worship said that he would adhere

to the amount he had stated. Mr Maginnity said it was probable that by the e\eniru steamer a surety might arrive he would -Ask that accused should not be taken to Wellington before an opportunity was given for arranging bail. Sergt. Mackay said that accused woiild riot be taken to Wellington before Wednesday; Mr Maginnity said that Would give the opportunity he wished as the matter would be arranged on Tuesday, if at all.