ALLEGED FORCERY AND UTTERING.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 261, 28 July 1908, Page 4

ALLEGED FORCERY AND UTTERING.

VERDICT HELD TO BE AMBIGUOUS. • ; NEW TRIAL ORDERED. Judgment was also given with respect to the case of King v. Wallace Hcrbort Stewart. This was a caso stated by Mr. Justice Chapman under Section 412 of tho Criminal Code. The prisoner was tried beforo him on May 21, 1908, at Wellington, on a charge of having on Septomber 10, 1007, forged an acknowledgment purporting to be by one Horace V. §. Griffiths, of tho receipt-of the sum of £5 ss. from himsolf, and used the samo as if it were genuine. Tho jury returned a vordict in the following termsWo find accused guilty of forgery and using a rcccipt, but do not consider' that it was done with any criminal intent." His Honour said that he considered it useless, having regard to what had already transpired, to send tho matter back for a more explicit finding, as ho had in charging them explained tho definition of the offences of forgery and uttering in tho terms of tho Code. Ho postponed sentence, and admitted the prisoner'to bail until ho could obtain tho opinion of tho Court as to tho effect of the verdict. Tho question of law, which ho desired tho Court to answer, was wholhor tho verdict was to be read as a verdict of "guilty," or as a verdict of "not guilty." Mr. Justice Cooper dolivered tho judgment of tho Court in this caso. To establish tho o/fenco of forgory, three matters only wore,ho said, essential—(l) That tho document was a falso doenmont; (2) tlmt tho person charged made it'knowing it to be falso; and (3) that ho mado it with the intention that it should bo used and acted upon as genuine. To establish the offonco of uttering two things only wore necessary—(l) Knowledge on the part-of tho uttorer that the document was forged, and (2) using, dealing, or acting upon it or attempting to do so, as if it wore genuine. In order to read the vordict in the present case as one of acquittal, tho vordict must be construed as meaning that, by negativing criminal intent, the jury meant to negative ono or moro of the essential in-

gradients of fcho, offonco. The Court could not say whether the jury meant merely to intlicato that, in their opinion, tho prisoner had no intontion to defraud Griffiths, in which case tho vordict would bo one of "guilty"; or whether they meant that ho honestly believed that ho had authority to sign tho receipt, and signed and used it believing that ho had a right to do so, in which caso probably tho vordict would be equivalent to 0110 of "not guilty." Tho proper cotirso was, therefore, to order a now trial, which was accordingly dono. Mr. Myers appeared on behalf _ of' the Crown, and Mr. Toogood for the prisoner.