Gubay signature ‘significant’

Press, 21 June 1980, Page 4

Gubay signature ‘significant’

1 f|PA Auckland il A British expert in foren- , sic handwriting and document examination said that |the position of Mr Albert s; Gubay’s signature on a y document at the hearing of a -'5600.000 lawsuit was “highly 5 significant.” Sj Robert William Radley t: told the High Court jury ij hearing the civil case that i he believed the writing tlhabits of Mr Gubay, even 11 when signing in a restricted L space, was that the signature [.appeared towards the middle ;'of the document and well ! below the text. I The signature on the docuIment was very close to the 1 left-hand margin, whereas UMr Gubay normally signed lin the middle of the page. t The signature also appeared over two lines of writing on the document, ..whereas- Mr Gubay usually :.signed far away from any I writing. The “crowded” style of writing on the document was ' “classic” of writing that had jbeen done around a preexisting signature. ! Mr Radley said he conicurred with a previous witI ness, Dr T. J. Sprott, that there were no paper fibres on the outer side of the glue on the agreement. He said that “striations” on the glue were totally inconsistent with the paper’s having been torn out of a jotting pad. Referring to the glue, he said: “This single feature shows that the document as presented is not what it is

[alleged to be. it is not a 'sheet from a notepad.” Mr Radley said a previous [witness. Dr Duffy, had found | that a Gubay company letterhead contained aluminium. but individual particles iof the disputed agreement I did not. Therefore, he (Dr j Duffy) concluded, the papers | were different. i But Mr Radley said the [history of the agreement was of paramount importance. He said' he believed the agreement had been treated with household bleach and had been ironed, possibly under considerable heat and pressure. The aluminium was soluble in an alkali such as! bleach, he said. The witness said he did not agree with a conclusion that the agreement could not have come from a Gubay company letterhead. But one could not positively concludethat it did, he said. > Continuing his evidence! from the previous day, Dri Sprott had said he could not! say precisely how much! chloride was present in the! disputed agreement, but it! was a significant amount. Hej had not examined the glue I on the Vancouver pad and! the sheet of paper in it. but! examining them visually ini court he could see paper i‘ fibres adhering to the glue on both.

The document at the centre of this dispute was also at the centre of a criminal trial in 1978, when Mr Ivor Mosley was acquitted on a-charge of having forged it - Mr Mosley is suing Mr Gubay and two of his companies for more than $600,000. He claims that he and Mr Gubay signed the

document on May, 8, 1974, on paper from a pad which he had bought in Vancouver.

It provided for the payment of 2.5 per cent commission for his work as an agent of sale for two of Mr Gubay’s companies, North Island Wholesale Groceries, Ltd. and 3 Guys,'Ltd. The document states that the commission was payable, irrespective of whether the companies were withdrawn from sale or the sale did not go ahead. Mr Gubay alleges that Mr Mosley forged the document, using the torn-off end of a

letter already bearing his signature. Mr “Mosley is claiming $1b5,000 from the two companies’! or alternatively compensation for services rendered, as his agent in 1974. A further $450,000 in damages is, being claimed from Mr Gubay for malicious prosecution, arising from the 1978 criminal trial. Evidence -in the action is expected to be completed today.

Counsel are expected to deliver their final addresses, and Mr Justice Thorp is summing-up, on Monday.