This Day.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3565, 12 December 1882, Page 2

This Day.

His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m. FOEGERT. Haremia, a young native, was indicated for having at Gisborne on June 21st forged a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand for £18, also with having uttered the same knowing it to be a forged instrument. . ■ ■

The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty.

Mr E. Ashton was chosen foreman of the jury.

Mr Cotterill, in his opening address, explained the circumstances of the case, wbich were, he said, of an unusual character. On 19th June last the prisoner came to Mr Allanach'o hotel at Gisborne and lodged there until the 21et of the same month, paying his way as he went, all excepting 3s, which Mr Allanach asKed him for. The prisoner did not pay the 33, but shortly afterwards he 'askejl Mr Allanach for a cheque on the of New Zealand, which Mr Allanach ; filled up for £18, and signed it "Joe Hammond" at prisoner's request. It would be shown in evidence that the cheque was subsequently presented by the prisoner at Mr Browne's store in Gisborne, where it was refused. The prisoner with other natives, then endeavored to cash it elsewhere, and, amongst other places, at a store at Makaraka.

. Alexander Allanach, proprietor of the Gisborne Hotel, Gisborne, was examined, and deposed to having filled in the body of a cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, Gisborne, for £18, at the prisoner's request, on the 21et June. Witness, after filling it in, handed it across'the counter for prisoner to sign, when the latter pushed it back and said- he could not write, and requested witness to sign it for him. Witness did so. The prisoner -gave his name as Joe Hammond. The cheque produced was the came that witness filled up and signed for the prisoner. Witness did not know the prisoner before the time he came to the hotel.

By the prisoner : Witness wrote another cheque for £4 for the prisoner. Did not give prisoner a cheque to sign. The prisoner said be had funds in the bank. Witness received no payment for writing out the cheque. There was .no one present when witness wrote the cheque. . , - i E. K. Brown recognised the who came fo hie store at Gieborne on \ June 22nd, and said he had some maize, wheat, and wool for sale, which witness agreed to buy on certain conditions. Witness made out a sale note, which the prisoner signed Honi te Tanui. [Document put in]. Witness identified the sale note. The prisoner subsequently presented a cheque for £18, which he asked witness to change. Witness declined to do so, and asked prisoner where he got the cheque. He said from Mr Hatnon at Ormond, with whom he had been working. When witness suggested that he would ask his brother if the signature was all right the prisoner looked anxious. After consulting bis brother he told the prisoner he would have to wait for an hour until the cheque was taken to the bank. After some further conversaiion the prisoner left, taking the cheque with him.

Adolphus Davis, storekeeper at Makaraka, recollected prisoner and two other natives coming to his store on 22nd. One was named Here Here Akena, and the other was a dumb boy. The latter produced and handed witness the cheque at prisoner's request, and prisoner asked witness to change it.

By the prisoner : Prisoner told witness that the cheque belonged to the three natives jointly, they having beeu work- L ing together at Mr Hamon's. Alfred Barnee, a clerk in the Bank of New Zealand, Gisborne, said no person of tbe name of Joseph Hammond had an account with that bank. There wae an account of Mr Joseph Hamon's of .x Ormond. The cheque (produced) presented and marked " not paid." Witness had known the prisoner for about» twelve months, during which time he was in the habit of presenting cheques.

By the Court: The cheque was presented at the bank by a native named Here Here Akena.

Joseph Hamon, of Ormond, denied that the cheque produced was drawn by him. Knew of no Joseph Hammond in tbe district. Had known the prisoner for several years. The prisoner never did any work for witness, but had been working for a neighbor. This closed the case for the prosecution, Tbe prisoner, who called no witnesses, addressed the jury at length, and denied that he knew wbat the wording of the cheque was. A man in Mr Allanach'e hotel gave the cheque to his friend Here Here and told them to come back when they bad cashed it. Hid Honor, in summing up, eaid his own opinion was that, in order to constitute forgery, there must be evidence of some manual act on the part of the persoii charged. Justice Stevens, a highW authority, had said that forgery was the making of a false document. True, there was a rnaximin law that whoever does a thing by another does it himself, but that did not hold in all cases, especially in criminal matters. The man who doe* a,

criminal act is responsible, and tbe man Who counsels or'advisee it to be done is also responsible, but as an accessory only. All definitions of the term indeed required some act on tbe part of the person charged. In the present case there was no act on the part of the prisoner ; it ■was not by his hands but by the hands of the witness Allanach that the forged instrument was made. No doubt the intention of the prisoner was fraudulent, but it was a doubtful question whether or not he way guilty of the crime of forgery. The evidence of the witness Allanach seemed very extraordinary. It was extraordinary that the witness should on account of a man who was a stranger to him. fill in a cheque for an amount ot money, and afterwards sign it, not even knowing if the name was genuine, as was indeed exceedingly improbable on the face of it. No doubt Allanach had done it innocently, but it was evident that a man doing innocent tricks of that kind must sooner or later get himself into trouble. There was too much looseness generally in tbe matter of publicans and others receiving chequee from people with whom they wereunaquainted. The proceedings in the present case were, however, very extraordinary, as it would appear that Allanach was guilty of making the false instrument. Thip, of course, was His Honor's own opinion, but in deference to high authority

— that of Justice CressweU —he felt bound to direct the jury 4L.v otherwise, reserving for future appeal, ■~BDould the prisoner be found guilty, the point as to whether the acts of the prisoner could be coneidered to amount to forgery. Justice CressweU had laid down That, ehould a man sign, or procure to sign, the name of another person to a bill, it was forgery, even although the person whose name was signed proved to be only an imaginary person. The jury of course were free to use their own discretion in the matter. With respect to the uttering tbe evidence against the prisoner was clear enough, and the jury would find the prisoner guilty on that count if satisfied that he presented the cheque knowing at the same time-that it was a false instrument. After a brief retirement the jury returned into Court with a verdict of" not guilty of forgery, but guilty of uttering a false instrument." The same prisoner was further charged with having, on the 22nd June last, forged and uttered a ehf que for £4 on the Bank of New Zealand at Gisborne.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr John Chicken was eboaen foreman of the jury. . ~ . The evidence was very similar m part to that given in the preceding case, excepting that in this case it appeared Allanach bad signed the cheque without the prisoner requesting him to do so, and that the signature was differently spelt. It also transpired that tbe person to whom the cheque was presented (another publican) could not identify the prisoner as the native who bad tendered it. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on "either count, and expressed their etrong disapproval of Allanach's conduct in supplying and filling up blank cheques for natives with whom he was, unacquainted. ■ The prisoner was then arraigned for sentence on the former indictment of uttering i cheque for £18 for which tbe jury bad found him guilty, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labor.