CHEQUE ALTERED.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20412, 5 December 1931, Page 19

CHEQUE ALTERED.

FARMER tSUES STOCK FIRM, MAQIgTRATE RESERVES DECISION Arising i'j-Qnj the alleged ■ gorging of a cheque six years jjgo, by altering the i amount from £7 to £7O, a case 'jwv olving aii Ashburton farmer, and the Asliburton branches of Pyne, Gould, ■"Guinness, Ltd. and the Bank of Jfcw Zealand, was heard in the Magistrate's Cpurt yosterday afternoon, boforo Mr S.M. The man who was alleged to have committed the forgery, it was stated, was now out. of the country. After counsel had addressed "the Magistrate, decision was reserved. E. S. Barpos, of Coldstream, Ashburton, farmer, claimed from Pyne, Gould, Gmnness, Limitbd, the sum of £63 wfl' I interest. The statement 6f out that the suit wag based qp the allegation , that on or about November 2n.V 1925, the* plaintiff gave to one, 0. ..Tatnell, an order for £7, drawn by the plaintiff on the defendant company, ' the ordor being unlawfully altered without the authority of plaintiff, f ro m £7 to £7O, by adding "ty" aftpr the word goven,'' and ''o" after the ' figure "7." The defendant company paid in respect to the order, tho gum of £7O, instead cjf £7, and tho plaintiff was charged with £63 in the accovwt current between tho plaintiff and the defendant coinpany. Therefore, tho plaintiff claimed from tho company payment of £63 as money received, by the defendant for the use of plaintiff, and wrongfully retained by defendant.

Question, of liability. . Counsel for the plaintiff said that in 1925 Mr Barnes drew a cheque, payable to C. Tatnell for £7- It was accepted by Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd:- The cheque was altered by Tatnell to £7O, and was accepted by the Bank. Counsel submitted that the forgery was an obvious one and it was unnecessary, -tot use a magnifying glass to delect it. It was written in fairly light-coloured ink and Tatnell had gone over every figure. The police had had tho matter in hand for some years, but Tatnell was now away from the country, and beyond New Zealand jurisdiction. Tho question was whether Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., were liable :'or the amount- Barnes had lost the money. If Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd, were called upon to pay then they claimed an indemnity from tho Bank, Tho Magistrate asked why the caso was not brought in Ashburton. Counsel replied that tho defendant's headquarters were in Christehurch. ;Tho Magistrate: Surely the case shoflld be heard in the place where tho cause of action arose. Counsel said that the Statute of Limitations would operate in a day or. two and they were compelled to lose no time in having the case ;lieard. The Magistrate said that in view of those facts ho would hear the proceedings. . Constable W. V, Ward produced the cheque which," he said, had been in <the hands of the police for a considerable time. Loss of £BB. Edward S. Barnes, farmer, of Coldstream, said that on November 2nd, 192!5, he drew cheque in favour of Tatnell, for £7, for wages, and handed it to him. The cheque had been altered. He had never dra.wn a cheque for Tatnell for £7O, and his account with Pyne, Goqld,, Guinaess, I>td.> had been debited with £7O, therefore he lost £63 over the transaction. Ho had not been paid the £63 by anyone. In reply to counsel for Fynq, Gould,Guinness, Ltd., Barnes said that Tatnell left witnesa'f farm for Asbbqrton day. Ho discovered the alteration. itr the cheque seven months later, through Mb past book.

Counsel for PynCf Goold, Guinneat, Iftd., said -that the customer diew orders and' iho company had an arrangement whereby the bank paid out. The alteration made by Tatncll must have teen made after its acceptance by Mr Ferrier, accountant for the company at AMiburton. Barnes" account with tho company was then in such a condition* that his* drawings were limited. It was unlikely that the man* ager, Mr Homing, or Mr Ferrier would accept a cheque for £7O, knowing tbe stato of Barnes' accotiSt, therefore the alteration must have been made after the cheque had left the firm. It was that Tatnell,. who arrived in Ashburton at 2.30 p.m., had the balance of the afternoon and the evening in which to jilter tho cheque. Had : he made the alteration before talcing the cheque to Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., he would , have doubled his chanco of detection. In effect the bank had debited Pyne, Gould, Guinness with £63 more than it was authorised to do.

The Order System. "William Allan Fleming, manager of the Ashburton branch- of Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., said that under tho order system employed by the firm there had been, no trouble before. Other stock firms used the same system. To counsel for the bank, witness said that when the cheque came back from the bank it was handed to the cashier, who posted it into tho casebook. After that it went into the ledger. Neither the nor Mr Ferricr went through the vouchers When they were returned. The forgery was discovered in May, 1926, and no demand was made on the bank, by the fifto until September, 1931. "Witness considered thut_it was Barnes' duty to make any demand. Herbert G. Forrier, accountant for Pyne, "Gonld, Guinness, Ltd., at Ashburi ton, said that -had the order been in the stato it was 'at ho would have referred it to the manager. Counsel for the bank said that it was clear that the cheque was drawn in a grossly negligent manner. There were spaces left after both the figure and the word "3even" and the forgery was exceedingly clever. The bank sad to accept the order. There w,as nothing in it to arouse suspicion. Frederick. "William Ernest , Pitcher, ledger-keeper at tho Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch, said that he was ledger-keeper in Ashburton in 1925. There was nothing in the cheque to arouse suspicion unless attention was drawn to it. . . Allan Justin Henderson, a teller at Ashburton in 1925, said that he would have had no hesitation in flashing tjie Ch James Hunter, accountant at tho Ashburton branch of the Bank of New Zealand in 1925, also gave evidence.