SUPREME COURT Man Guilty Of Possessing And Uttering Counterfeit Notes

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31498, 12 October 1967, Page 8

SUPREME COURT Man Guilty Of Possessing And Uttering Counterfeit Notes

John William Barnes, also kndwn as John Holt, aged 33, an unemployed freeiing butcher, was found -guilty on sss'tsa on Augu# 3; and two further charges of uttering them as genuine on the same date. Mr Justice Macarthur remanded Barnes, who had pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr M. G. L. Loughnan, for sentence on October 20. ’ The Crown had conceded that the two Australian notes cashed by Baines—one at the main branch of the Bank of New Zealand—were skilful forgeries, which might deceive persons with little experience of Australian currency, but claimed that Barnes’s “odd behaviour”: in cashing the notes at two different places on the same day, after first declining, to leave one of them at a High Street bank for Australian collection, was a pointer to guilty knowledge that the notes were counterfeit Commenting on Barnes’s evidence given in his own defence, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. M. Roper) submitted that his story of purchasing the Australian notes for £7 each from an unknown man in a hotel bar was a fabrication—“or if he did, there was a little more to it in that he

well knew pt-thd time that he teas dealing in counterfeit ; As to the unknown man, the jury could take Its choice between “a tall Australian with a red moustache" and “a man of,,_sft ,Bin with receding hair aha with some dark blood” —differing descriptions which the accused had given to a United Service Hotel barman and to Detective Sergeant A. B. Dalzell. Barnes gave evidence that after seeing the two Australian £lO notes in the .possession of a man with whom he had been drinking in the United Service Hotel, and who told him they were worth 3NZI4 each, he telephoned the Bank of New Zealand,

which informed him the cash value was 5NZ15.72. “I realised I stood to make 17s on each note,” said Barnes. “So 1 bought them Norman Patrick Alcorn, Government Analyst in Christchurch, said he considered the two notes were counterfeit, printed from photographically - produced plates. The whole Quality of their printing was inferior, with some obvious imperfections, such as smudging- on the' portrait of Governor Philip, and the coat of arms of Australia,- which was hardly recognisable. To produce them. Said witness, he thought genuine notes had been photographed

s through a coloured filter, t which had caused orange and grey’ colours to merge with : red, whereas genuine Austra- ■ Han £lO notes were printed in i four colours: Mack, grey, red, i and orange on the front, and - a different red on the reverse. The red of a genuine note i gave an orange fluorescence i under ultra-violet light, but i there was nb fluorescence from the paper. The ink of the other two notes gave no ; fluorescence, but‘their paper , a bluish-white fluorescence. The printing .of genuine : notes was sharp and clear, - witness Mid, with watermarks , clearly visible. The other two

, notes bore an inferior apI pearance, the paper being limp and the edges not ' sharply cut. There were no watermarks. ( 7 Crocs-Fxamination [ Under cross-examination by t Mr Loughnan, Mr Alcorn said that he considered there were sufficient imperfections in the ' notes cashed by Barnes to ; “make them suspicious" to an , ordinary person. ' The circumstances coloured the matter a lot, said witness. An Australian £lO was a sizeable denomination. It was a note from another country. It would arouse curiosity. And on examining it, there would be “very obvious imperfections.”

Mr Loughnan: Without a trained .eye, one would find difficulty in distinguishing the differences you have spoken of?—One would find difficulty in noting some differences, but some are obvious. But these counterfeit notes would deceive-a person who does not look very carefully, with a scrutinous eye?—Yes, anybody who accepts it as a £lO note and puts it in his pocket without having a good look at it could be deceived. Witness conceded that a person could be much more readily deceived by the counterfeit notes ip the absence of a genuine note for comparison, and that with an isolated counterfeit note, many of the differences would not be immediately apparent. But after careful thought, and considering the circumstances, said witness, he thought there were sufficient imperfections' in Barnes’s notes to have made them suspicious. John Stuart Nelson, assistant manager of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, also pronounced Barnes’s Australian notes as counterfeit, saying that the texture of the paper was limp and inferior, the printing was blurred, the colours had run together, and that the notes had no watermarks.

“Just Paid Out” Barnes was identified by Jennifer Elizabeth Nlchoil, a teller at the Bank of New Zealand main branch, as the man who had cashed an Australian £lO note for $NZ15.72 about noon on August 3. She had a look at the note, and thought it was a little shabby, but “just paid out.” Gordon Raymond Mowat, a secretary-organiser; said that Barnes, who was known to him, had changed an Australian £lO note with him when purchasing tickets at a social function held by the Skellerup Woolston Brass Band on the evening of August 3, saying that he had cashed another at the Bank of New Zealand that morning, and that it was worth 3NZ15.75 Russell Brian Vine, an employee of the Bank of New Zealand, gave evidence of receiving both the Australian £lO notes, on August 4 and '9, and sending them on to Australia for collection, but both were rejected. He handled only a few AustraHan notes to the course of bank business, he said, and had.no suspicion that either note had been counterfeit

Two further Bank of New Zealand employees, John Robert Kirk and Ronald Alexander Havill, identified Barnes as having called at the lower High Street branch about 11 a.m. on August 3 wanting to cash an Australian £lO note. The latter said that he considered the note not the genuine article, and told Barnes that it would have to be sent to Australia for collection, upon which Barnes said he Would send it himself, and left the bank. Accused’s Evidence

Barnes said in his evidence that he; than decided to “try the bank he had telephoned,” and went to the Bank of New Zealand's - main ' branch in Hereford Street, where one of the Australian notes was cashed for him. “I would have left it there for collection, and left my name and address, had I been requested,” Barnes said. Cross-examined by Mr Roper, Barnes said that he had not cashed the second note at this time because he had decided to keep it as a souvenlr-r-but had done so at the Skellefup-Woolston Band function that evening as he was short of money. Mr Loughnan, in his final address, emphasised that Barnes had cashed the second note with Moteat, to whom he was well known. If Barnes ' bad known the notes were counterfeit, would he have done that?

On this topic, Mr Roper said: “The accused, out of work and on compensation as he was, invests $2B of his limited capital in these notes, and yet can afford to put one by as a souvenir, or so he tells Detective Sergeant Dalzell. Yet that same night he is 'short of money’ anil cashes it.” Summing up, his Honour said the crux of the ease was whether Barnes knew the Australian notes were forgeries. It the jury held there was reasonable doubt about this, he must be acquitted of all charges. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all four charges after a retirement of half an hour.