FORGING AND UTTERING.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume IV, Issue 347, 5 January 1876, Page 3

FORGING AND UTTERING.

William Ohossley was brought up on reroand on Friday last, at the Auckland Police Court, upon three distinct oharges of forgery and uttering. The first case proceeded with was for having uttered a forged cheque for 10s, upon the Bank of New South Wales, to John Odium. Mr Quintal appeared for the prisoner. John Odium, landlord of the Black Bull Hotel, proved that the accused came to his house on the 13th inst., and called for refreshments to the value of Is 6d, io payment of which he tendered a cheque for 10s upon the Bank of New South Wales, which he signed "J. Crossley, elk.," in witness's presence. He also owed a previous account of 7s. On p:esenttng the cheq,ue at the bank, payment was refused, and ho was told that the same was a forgery. Witness did not give the prisoner any change, as he did not believe he had auv funds in the bank. The prisoner appeared to be sober on the occasion. Mr W. E. C. Osborne, a teller in the Bank of New South Wales, deposed that the last witness bad presented the cheque in question on the 14th instant, which witness found to be a forgery. He knew the Rev John Crossley, of Eatikati, who has had an open account at the bank. The signature to the cheque was not like the Rev J. Croßsley'g. Believed prisoner to be that gentleman's Bon. The Bey John Crossley, clergyman of the Church of England, of Katikati, was called, and proved that he did have an acoount at the Bank of New South Wales some time ago. f J he cheque produced • was not signed by him, nor was any person authorised to sign it for him.- Witness iden- ' tified the prisoner in thedoek>as his -eon.. Deteotive Grace proved arresting the prisoner on the 17th instant on tike present charge. He stated that hia-raasorr for forging Lis ; father's name to-tbe cheque was because, on : arriving from Tauranga, he was without funds to obtain board and lodging. To Mr Quintal : The. prisoner had the appearance of having been- drinking. The depositions were read over, atd the prisoner, through his solicitor, reserved his defence, Ihe accused was next charged with having uttered a forged oheque for £1, with intent to defraud Hubert Oram, of the Prince Arthur Hotel. This was a. similar charge to the loregoing,..and similar evidence was adduced. The prisoner was. further oharged with utteriag a forg«d cheque for £10, with intent to defraud Messrs Dun« ningham and King, of the Governor Bi'owne Hotel. Evidence of a like nature having been given in this caser. the prisoner was committed to take his trial upon all three charges at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court: