JOSEPH MYERS'S TRIAL.

Evening Post, Volume LVII, Issue 155, 3 July 1899, Page 6

JOSEPH MYERS'S TRIAL.

ACCUSED BKFORK THE SUPREME I COURT. Tho Supreme Court resumed its sitting in criminnl jurisdiction this morning, to dispose; of cases on tho list interrupted by tho recont illness of Mr. Justice Edwards. Mr. Justice Denniston now presided, and the first case taken was that against Joseph Myers. Myers was arraigned on five indictments charging him with forgery nnd uttering. To each of these ho pleaded Not Guilty Mr. Stringer (of Christchurch) appeared with Mr. Wilford for the Crown, and Mr. Hanlon (of Dunedin) defended the accused. Mr. Hanlon took exception to the count; charging Myers with uttering, us ho hod been extradited for forgery from Monte Video, under a treaty with that State, according to which ho could not bu tried except for the offence for which he Was extradited.. Hih Honour—ls this the formal time to object? Mr. Hanlon — I want to get youi Htnour's ruling. I submit that exception can bo taken at any time/ His Honour — Horn' do you sugisest ihut the facts you state are bofcrfr mer Mr. Hanlon — They aro on the depositions. Mr. Stringer said the prosecution would consent, for the sake of convenience, to his Honour referring to tho depositions. His Honour said tho mutter «houid be nut before him in some definite way. He did not ihink he ougltt to accept the. consorut to read the depositions. Mr. Stringer pointed out that ii was a matter which the accused could mise in his defence. His Honour said there was nothing before him but the .indictment for forgery and uttering. The defence could bring Beiore him later the facts on which they relied. -- Mr. Stringer stated that the Extradition Aot provided that an accused person shall ba charged for no offence other than that for which ho was extradited, or what is disclosed by the facts on which h«j waa extradited. Mr. Justice Denniston remarked that uttering would hUrely be disclosed by the facts. Mr. Hanlon : But that is not wlyit the Ireoity says. j Mr. Stringer — Tho treaty us between Uruguay and England provides that no man ahull bo charged fov an offence other than that on .which he it extrudited. His Honour — The question of the breach of the treaty seems to bo ono fo • + ho Powers to settle. Tho discussion on this subject then 'ceased. Myers was then charged with hav'-^, on oi' about 20th August, 1898, (urgyj the name of M. C. O'Connel l to a pun.;*bory noto for £381, -md also, on tho 10th September, to another promifsory note for iSIOO, and uttering the latter to tho South Pacific Loan (Jonipi-ny Mr. Benjamin Wallace was chosen fore- ! man of tho jury. | Mr. Stringer explained that. *,he charges against tho accused weie of forging and uttering two separate promissory notes, and ho thought tho evidence would bo' found extremely simple. On the 20th August, accused took the alleged forged promissory noto for £386 to Mi. Fabian, and borrowed from him £200, giving his own cheque in exchange and the promissory note as security. On the 14th December accused took tho second promissory noto to Mr. W. H. Cook, of tho South Pacific Loan Company, who discounted it. There had been previous transactions between tho two! Next arose the question as to whether the bills were forgeries, but 4he evidence in that respect

would be conclusive, as O'Connell would swear that tho signatures were not his. j Tho body of both promissory notes waa i apparently in tho handwriting of accused. Evidence could rarely be given that a man was Beon forging documents, but it was sulrtcicn that he was found in poshession of them, as the responsibility then rested with him of proving that ho came by them honestly, and believed them to bo genuine. Evidence would be called thut accused was trajfficking in forged documents other than those in the charges, and was systematically presenting them all over j;ho place. Evidence was then called as follows : — [ XV. H. Cook, Secretary to tho South Pacific Loan and Discount Company, said that accused brought tho promissory noto for £100 to him, in part payment of a provious promissory note, both documents bearing tho signature, " M. C. O'Connell.'' C. E. Fabian, auctioneer, deposed to having received from Myers in return for a loan, a bill for £386, purporting to bo signed by O'Connell. Myers also gave his own cheque for £200, but it was dishonoured when witness presented it at later date. To Mr. Hanlon— Myers voluntarily offered the promissory noto. Witness was willing to givo accused tho money without any security except bis own cheque, but Myers said he had better toko the promissory noto as collateral security. Witness recoived £15 for the consideration. 1\ Whitehouse, Secretary to the Te Aro Loan Company, stated that accused brought him several bills bearing the name "M. C. O'Connell" and "P. Aldous." To Mr. Hanlon — The business was satisfactory up to the last. Was getting a good deal of interest — 20 per cont. It was not a fact that witness had received £300 as interest from accused in ono year. That was tho amount for threo years. Accused had £3872 in that period. That was the total of the transactions. The largest single advance to abused was £461. George Poynton, settler, Daniel-street, saw accused on the 23rd September, 1898, tho latter having written seeking an interview. Myers borrowed £200 from witness, an<J gave his own cheque for £204. L Witness overdrew his account to oblige "Myers. Subsequently, accused gave witness a promissory noto for £347, purporting to 00 signed by "P. Aldous." When Myers's cheque was presented it was dishonoured. To Mr. Hanlon — Told Myers it was not necessary for him to give him theipro-* inissory note. Witness had previously lent Myers money. Witness was a shareholder in the Tc Aro and the Wellington Loan Companies. Had interviewed accused s father, but did not oxftctly ask for payment of tho money. Spoke to accused on Lambton-quay, and said, " You have served me a very nasty trick.'' Myers turned round, and said, " I can't talk about; that matter now, you know what is pending." Witness did not say ho would not produce his documents to tho polico if Myers settled with him. Mr. Hanlon — Did he say you could produce what documents you liked ; he nad nothing to fear? Witness — No. Ho said nothing of the kind. Myers said that he (witness) had j not been frank with tho rest of the creditors. Witness did not know what ho "meant by that. M. C. O'Connell said that tho signatures on tho two bills, tho subject of this indictment, were not his. Ho never jjave Myers any promissory notes, but had en- ! dor&ed accused's cheques foi him to <>blijro him. Two of those cheques, one for £520, and another for £160, were dishonoured aaid charged to witness's account. To Mr. Hanlon— Had had racing transactions with Myers to a very small amount. To protect. Myers had told his brother that accused did not own the racchnrso Osborne, but that was not true, as Mynrs did -own tho horse, though it was rim in witness's name. Had probably endorsed a dozen cheques for Myers. Received £400 from accused shortly before ho left, the- co'.ony, but did not remember receiving any money previous to that. Mr. Hanlon — Have you taid sinco Mvnrs has been brought back that you wished to God ho hud never been brought back? Witness— Yes, I said that ; but for his family's sake. Aro you sure that you nover signed a promissory note or a bill for Myers? Ypr j I never signed a promissory uoto for Myers, or c bill. Priseilla A'.dous snid accused was in tho habit of doing business with her. Tho wignatures on tho bil'.s produced, which boro her name, nnd had been presented by Myers, wf.re not hers. Had never pu»chased goods to any largo amount from Myers— £l2 would probably bo tho largest, at any time. To Mr. Hnnlop. — Hnd hnd many transactions with accused, extending over 12 or 18 months. Aroused used fo put on his own interest. M>\ Hanlon — Havo you any idea how much bo paid you in interest during that tunn* W'lness— No ; I don'i. romembe". My son kept n. memorandum. Mr Hanlon proceeded lo question tho witness ns to tho rate of interest klie cbnrgcd. . Hm Honour — Supposing even that sho charged him 100 per cent , how do you suggest i taffects this caso? Mr. Hanlon — It might go to affect her credibility. His Honour — Oh, \ory well. Mr Hanlon (to witness)— ls Ih not v fact that you charged him interest at the rate of £100 a month for a loan o f £800. Witness — No • ho never got, Ji. Didn't, you get. it onco or twice? If I did. ho got it back aijain. J. A Hall said ho lent. Myeru.%o on a promisypr" noto for £126, purporting to bo' signed by V Aldons. [This wbb one "f tho promissory note* which "Mrs. Aldous in her evidence had donicd was signed by lier ] To Mr. Hanion — Myors had said to wii,noss when tho latter spokn to him about the' promissory aoto nob being a genuine one — "I assuro you, Mr. Hall, that the bill is perfectly genuine, and worth iIN facn valuo. ' Witness then asked 'accused if he had «een 'Mrs. Aldoui sign if, and hn replied in tho affirmative. j At this slago tbo Court adjourned 'or luncheon. Mr Hanlon asked t,ha<. ntouand sbou'd be released on bail for the adjournment, - bub his Honour said bo did not. think it necessary, as t.ho prisoner *ould hlill bo in consultation with bis "ounsel. Expert pvidonco wns givon to the handwriting on the documents in question, Wright proved the nrro.st. and bringing back from Monte Video, and the putting in of a copy of the extradition treaty closed Mm case for thn prosecution. . No evidwicn was railed for the defence. Mr. Hanlon is addrnsstng '.be Court as we go to press.

Tha Royal Commission appointed by tbo Governmen f >o enquire tnty thu Rnkaia accident and llm causes which lod up to it held a sitting which is perhaps the shortost (says the Chnstchurch I'niss) on record In New Zealand. It occupied two days. On tln» first it. opened and visited the scene of the accident, and on the second, hntwen 'he hour* of 10 a in. and 6 p.m., it henrd all the evidence which was forthcoming. The Commissioners expect U» havo their report in tho hand* of the Government during tlm week. Tho six-ro6mcd residence of Mr. Alfred Garret t nt Ohariu, Johnsonvilk, was burned down nt about & o'clock this morning. Mr. and Mrs. Gurrott and tho children escaped with only their clothing, and without boot?. Tho house was insured for £300 and tho furniture for £200. The cauws of tl>" fire is said to havo been uccidentn'..