CHARGE OP USING A FORGED DOCUMENT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3195, 20 September 1917, Page 5

CHARGE OP USING A FORGED DOCUMENT

ACCUSED ACQUITTED. By Telegraph—Press Association. Gisborne, September 19. At the Supromo Court, Arthur Gordon Grain, a well-known local dealer, ■ was charged with having in May, 1017, at Gisborne, procured Te Paea Tait to forge an endorsement to a bill of .exchange purported to be drawn by E. Tait, on the Mangatu No. 1 account for 4s. 6d. Accused was further charged with having on the same date used, or acted upon, as if it wero genuine, a false document, knowing the same to bo false in a material part, namely, the order in question in favour of Nelison and Co., and purporting to be oendorsed by Nelison and Co. The case arose out of a charge of forgery heard at the last sessions against To Paea Tait, a married. Maori woman, who was convicted of forging her husband's name to certain bills of exchange, and of causing them to be acted on as if genuine. The facts were that Mrs. Tait owed Gnnn money, and tendered him in pajinent orders on the Mangatu Station account, including one for J3269 is. fid., drawn in favour of Nelison and Co;- This had beon wrongly endorsed Nelison and Co., and when the bank pointed out the mistake, Q«">n Rot Mrs Tait to re-endorse tho order Nelison and Co." „He admitted this .while giving evidence against Mrs. Tait m the Lower Court. Mr. L. T. Burnard appeared for the ,xcused, who pleaded not guilty. . ■ After hearing the evidence the jury returned a verdict in the form of an* swers to three questions as follows:— (1) Did accused procure Te Paea Tait to endorse "Nelison and Co." on a bill of exchange?—" Tea." (2) Did accused- knowingly procure such endorsement believing that Mrs. Tait had authority to sign the same?—" Yes." (3) Did accused negotiate the bill believing the endorsement to be a forgery? -"•lo." ' " His Honour said this was equal to a verdict of not guilty, and accused, was discharged. •