WOMAN ACQUITTED

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 253, 24 October 1936, Page 20

WOMAN ACQUITTED

CHARGE OF FORGERY.

ALTERATION TO RECEIPT.

STATEMENT BY INSPECTOR.

Charged with forgery, in that she had altered a rent receipt from £1 1/ to £2 2/, thereby causing it to be acted upon, Mabel Annie Willis, a married woman, for whom Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared, was acquitted by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Fair, Mr. V. I\. Meredith appearing for the Crown. The evidence for the Crown was that Thomas Aldridge, inspector of propertics, called at the accused's home 011 February 5, 1935, to collect rent owing by her, and received from her £1 1/, for which he gave her a receipt and pasted the receipt in the rent book. The Crown alleged the receipt had been altered by accused from £1 1/ to £2 2/, and the alteration had been discovered in the Public Trust Office when the receipt was produced there in January, 1930. Mrs. Willis said that the inspector had altered the receipt. Subsequently, in January, 1930, the inspector called at her house and asked her who saw him alter the receipt, and she said she had witnesses, including her mother. He asked for her mothers address, and after some reluctance she told him her mother could be found, probably, at a house in Eden Crescent. Later, when the mother was interviewed, she stated she did not sec the receipt altered. The Crown also relied 011 the fact that the accused was paying by instalments the guinea which was included in the £2 2/ 011 the receipt., a:id this was subsequent to the time when.she had received the receipt. The Crown stressed the clumsy nature of the alteration and the reluctance of the accused to give a sample of her hand-, writing when the figures were requested by Detective Meiklejohn.

For the defence II r. Sullivan contended that there were two weeks owing at the time the inspector called at the house of accused. When the receipt was given for |l 1/ the mother, who was in a nearby washhpu.se, suggested to the daughter to pay the other guinea, and the collector was called back, and 011 the guinea being handed to him he altered the receipt. It was stressed by Mr. Suliivan that although the tenant remained in the house until February 21, 1935 —-over a fortnight I after the collector had called—llo other collector called for any further rent from her, although the Public Trust Department gave her notice to quit 011 February 12, and although the same collector was in the same locality a week after the receipt was given by him. The defence also relied upon the evidence of Mr. W. J. Gatenby, handwriting expert, who pointed out similarities in figures and letters in the handwriting of the inspector and the writing 011 the receipt. The defence also relied upon the evidence of the mother, which i~ a material particular corroborated the story of the accused. The accused and witnesses gave evidence on the lines indicated, and after a short retirement of 20 minutes the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.