CHARGE OF FORGERY

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 32, 1 November 1933, Page 2

CHARGE OF FORGERY

Hutt Councillor Found Guilty FINE OF £4O IMPOSED A flue of £4O, in default three months’ imprisonment, was imposed by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in the Supreme Court yesterday on Amos Howell, borough councillor, of Upper Hutt, who was found guilty of forging a receipt dated January 16, 1933, to the Upper Hutt Borough Council, purporting to be signed by T. Johnson, lor £2/12/-. The accused was allowed 14 days in which to make pavnient. “I feel it difficult to think that these things" could have gone on without gqme person having knowledge of what was happening,” said his Honour. “It certainly needs further investigation. I realise that as far as you personally are concerned, you have already been punished for the offence you have committed,.” It would mean that Howell would lose his position as a councillor, and his Honour assumed that he would also be removed from the list of justices of the peace, lu addition, Howell would no doubt also have to face the possibilities of penalties in another court for any offences he might have committed against the Municipal Corporations Act. “I have no doubt that this prosecution will have done a considerable amount of good throughout the country,’' It would have an effect, said his Honour, of focusing attention on the provisions affecting local government. “I do not think it is necessary to impose more than a fine to cover the expense to. the State of the trial of both yourself and your son.” His Honour accordingly fined the accused the amount mentioned above. Mr. C. Evans Scott conducted the case for the Crown, while the accused was represented by Mr. A. J. Mazengarb. Evidence was given by Thomas Harold Johnson, a blacksmith employed by Howell, to the effect that he had not given anyone authority to make out a voucher for £2/12/-, nor had he given (tnyone permission to use, hip signature. No evidence was called by the defence. In addressing the jury,, Mr. Mazengarb said that Howell had made no effort to imitate Johnson’s signature and had not intentionally made a false document. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation for leniency. DISCHARGE OF SON Verdict of Jury Not Sought Acting in accordance with the provisions in section 37 of the Crimes Act, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, discharged Amos Rae Howell, a garage assistant, of Upper Hutt, who was faced with three charges of forging receipts to the Upper Hutt Borough Council, purporting to be signed by others. The case followed along the lines of the previous case against Amos Howell, the father of the accused, although the two were tried separately. His Honour said that when the first two offences had been committed Howell had been only 20 years of age, being only 22 now. It was quite plain that the youth had been working for his father, and in all that he had done with the vouchers, he had acted on his father’s instructions. If he was convicted he would not have imposed more than a nominal punishment, if any punishment at all. He did not wish to ask the jury for a verdict, which would mean a black mark against the accused for life. His Honour said he knew that the jury would accordingly agree with him in making an order for the discharge of the accused, without asking members for a verdict. “This has the effect of an acquittal, although it is not actually an acquittal,” said his Honour. The charges against the accused were that he did forge a receipt dated November 2, 1931, to the Upper Hutt Borough Council, purporting to be signed by T. R. Johnson, for the sum of £l2/4/-, that on or about November 30. 1931, he did forge a. receipt to the council, purporting to be signed by R. E. Rotheray, for the sum of £24/10/8, and that on or about September 5, 1932, he did forge a receipt to the same council, purporting to be signed by T. 11. Johnson, for the sum of £22 7/-. The case for the Crown was that the vouchers had been sent to the council office with the intention, of their being acted upon as genuine. Even the auditor had at first acted upon them as genuine. The money, said Mr. Scott, had not been collected by the accused or the employees, but by Howell senior, the father of the accused. Evidence on lines similar to that given in the previous case was called by the Crown to show that the signatures on the vouchers had been made without the owners’ authority. Evidence was also given by Arthur Caird Todd, audit inspector, who said that he had at first acted upon the documents as genuine. Mr. Mazengarb, in speaking to the jury, admitted that the documents were false, but submitted that the accused did not know that he was making false documents, and he had no intention of their being acted upon as genuine.