FORGED INVOICE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 46, 23 February 1934, Page 8

FORGED INVOICE.

WARKWORTH WOMAN. BENZINE PURCHASE REFUND COULD NOT FIND DOCUMENT. (From Our Own Correspondent.) WARKWORTH, Thursday. The wife of a well-known farmer in the district appeared beforj Messrs. A. J. S. Warin and J. P. Smythcman, J.P.'s, this morning charged with forgery. Mr. V. W. Holden appeared for accused. The postmaster at Matakana stated that lie remembered the occasion when accused's husband called at the post office and made an application for a refund under the Motor Spirits Taxation Act. The form was sent to Wellington for checking purposes, and was returned to liim asking him to obtain a statement from the Matakana Co-operative Dairy Company, Ltd., showing the quantity of spirit purchased during the quarter. He at no time had noticed any alteration, although the docket now appeared to have been altered. A statement showing that 44 gallons had been purchased was obtained from the company, and the file was then returned to Wellington. The application was for a total of 52 gallons.

The manager of the Matakana Co-oper-ative Dairy Co. said ho knew defendant's husband, who was a supplier. During the quarter 44 gallons of. benzine was purchased which was delivered by the cream carrier. It was the total amount purchased during that quarter. An invoice was shown witness showing one case of benzine purchased in July, 1933. This docket was the original invoice for the purchase of one case of benzine in April, 1932. The invoice appeared to him to have been altered, both the 'month and the year.

Constable G. R. Robertson, of Warkwortli, stated that as the result of a statement he had received from the registrar of motor vehicles, Wellington, he interviewed defendant in the presence of her husband. He informed her of the nature of the inquiry, and showed her the invoice which showed that her husband purchased from the Matakana Dairy Company one case of benzine in July, 1933. He asked them if they knew anything about it. The husband denied all knowledge of it. Defendant informed him that while' assisting lier husband to fill in the application for a refund of benzine tax she could not find a docket showing the purchase of one case of benzine. She then searched a file and found an invoice, on which a refund had not been applied for, and she altered the date from April, 1932, to July, 1933, and handed it to her husband. She did not inform him of the alteration.

The justices ruled that a prima facie case had been made out, and said they had no option but to commit defendant to the Supreme Court for trial. A plea of guilty was then entered, and accused was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was allowed in one surety of £25. An application for the suppression of accused's name was granted.