PAY WARRANT STOLEN

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24022, 10 August 1943, Page 7

PAY WARRANT STOLEN

CLERK REMANDED FOR SENTENCE HANDWRITING evidence UPHELD Rochelle McCarthy, a young married woman, formerly of Christchurch, was found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on two rant 8 ** re * tln * to a lost Army pay war,.s£® w x a u char B ed that on October 7, at Christchurch, she had stolen an Armv r« r . rant£9 06 P a y a ble to Mrs E. M. Bennett, the property of the Army Department of the New Zealand Government. The second charge (to which she also pleaded not guilty), stated that on the same day at Christchurch she had knowingly made a false document bv signing that warrant with the name of Mrs Bennett without the latter's author. with the Intention that it should be acted upon .as genuine, and thereby committing forgery. The prisoner was remanded for sentence. Ball was allowed on the appllcaA ior L of „ her counsel - Mr C. S. Thomas. Mr A. W. Brown appeared for the Crown. Mrs Ellaline Mary Bennett, a married woman, who resided at 261 Kllmore street, Christchurch, said that the accused had had a flat at the same address until July, 1841. The husband of witness was then overseas and each fortnight she received an Army pay warrant from Wellington. One such warrant, she said, was due on October 7, 1941, but she did not receive it, so she notified the postal authorities that It was missing. A duplicate warrant was subsequently forwarded to her. Mrs Bennett said she had never given anyone authority to sign a warrant, and she denied that the copy produced from the Post Office contained her signature. Apart from that incident she said that Mrs McCarthy had been perfectly honest in her dealings with witness. George Thomas Taylor, a former postman, said that he was stopped in the street by Mrs McCarthy in October, 1041, and he handed over a packet of letters. Mr Brown: Was that usual? Witness; It was an isolated case. Counsel: Did this ever occur on any other occasion?—lt was the only occasion. Horace Andrew Wlmsett, a former Post Office pay clerk, said that two pay warrants, one for Mrs Bennett and the other for Mrs McCarthy, were presented and cashed on October 8. He could not recall who presented them. Detective Nell John McPhee produced a statement which the accused had signed at Wellington, and in which she denied that she had ever collected a pay warrant for Mrs Bennett. Witness obtained from her several specimens of her handwriting. At his request she wrote Mrs Bennett's name, and she spelt it With only one "t." Witness pointed out that the forged signature on the warrant was also spelt with one "t." The accused replied that she could not help the similarity in handwriting. A second statement was obtained from her later when she again denied any connexion with the matter. Captain Raymond George Collins, a handwriting expert, was called by the Crown, and he testified that the handwriting of the accused and that on the forged warrant were similar. Evidence of Handwriting Expert Mr Thomas submitted that handwriting evidence could not be accepted on its face value, and advised the jury that it should be scrutinised very carefully Indeed. His Honour: Can you quote any authority for saying that, Mr .Thomas? Mr Thomas; I believe there have been a number of Judicial pronouncements on the subject. His Honour: I would like to have those authorities, Mr Thomas. Mr Thomas: I am sorry, sir, but I cannot quote the authorities just offhand. In summing up, Mr Justice Northcroft said that the Courts did not discredit evidence given by handwriting experts, as had been suggested by counsel for the defence. His Honour had not heard their evidence called in question either in writing, or in judltlal pronouncements. In fact, the opposite was the case, and the Court had obtained the assistance of handwriting experts. There was no reason to disparage such evidence. The evidence of the witness, continued his Honour, was entitled to be regarded as responsible, and not with contempt. "You have been told by counsel that you are Just as good as handwriting experts, and counsel poses as a handwriting expert also. It is your duty to treat the witness as a witness and counsel as an advocate.”