ALLEGED FORGERY

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 146, 21 June 1923, Page 6

ALLEGED FORGERY

IMPORTANT EVIDENCE CALLED

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOE TRIAL,

The preliminary hearing of the charge ot forgery laid in connection with an alleged bogus loan granted by the Wellington Repatriation Board against a young clerk named Frank Victor Herbert Coull was concluded before Mr. E Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. To-day the three counts of conspiring with Ernest William M'Cardell, to defraud the Government of £50, will be proceeded with. Chief-Detective Kemp conducted the case.xor the Crown, and the accused was represented by Mr. P. W. -Jackson. Ernest William M'Cardell, at present serving a sentence of.eighteen months' imprisonment for the theft of Government moneys, said that he joined the District, Office of the Eepatriation Department in April, 1919, and was appointed accountant in 1921. Prior to this, he was a clerk. Coull was interviewing officer in respect to furniture loans in 1921. The Chief-Detective: "What happened between you and the accused Coull?" Witness: "An arrangement was enter-. Ed into to put through the board various fictitious loans." "You agreed to the. suggestion?"— "Yes." "And what happened?"—" During the year various fictitious loans were put through," ■"More than one?"—" Yes, about twenty of them." "For how much were they?"—" Sumo were for £50 and others were for £75." "And the3e were granted by the board?"—" Yes." "Who made out the applications?"— "I did some, and Coull made out the others." "Were they genuine?"—" Some were and others were fictitious." "What do you means by that?"—"l mean that some of the names of tJio applicants were genuine and some were fictitious." "Who put the applicants through the board?—"Coull did." "And who .satisfied the board that the applications were genuine and that everything was in order?"—"Coull did." "Was it possible for you to put the loans through on your own?"—"No, because I was not the interviewing officer." "By whom was the signature 'J. Ward' signed to the present application?"—"By Coull." "How do you know?"—'.'l sa w him sign it." .< "Did Es write in any particular way?" —"Yes, he used the back of the pennib.''' "Who made out the cheque for £50?" —'.'A clerk named Telford." "Did you receive any of the cheque when it was cashed?"—" No." "To whom was the cheqti9 handed after it was signed by Batten?"—"lt was handed to Coull." ' "And the voucher?"—"lt also was handed to him. He receipted it." "How did the cheque come to be paid on the 3rd August when the loan wc.s not granted until 10th August?"—"lt evidently was provisionally approved by the board." "Whose duty was it to have it approved?"—"lt was the duty of Coull, the interviewing officer." "You have already pleaded guilty to receiving £1050. Is this present application included?"—" Yes." "And you have already said that you did not receive any of this £50:"— "Yes." Detective Nuttall and Edward Scoft Innes gave evidence as to the various exhibits and described interviews with the accused Coull. This concluded the case for the Crow;), and the accused, who pleaded not guilty, reserved his defence, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was renewed in his own bond of £300 and two sureties of a like amount.