FORGERY CHARGES

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1931, Page 2

FORGERY CHARGES

SCHOOL SECRETARY SENTENCED

Pleading guilty to charges of forgery and theft, Matthew Cuthbert appeared in the Supreme Court at Westport, before Mr. Justice Kennedy. In his charge to the Grand Jury, His Honor said that accused was secretary of a school committee and the cheques were to be signed by the chairman and treasurer'; The cheques were drawn, but the evidence would show that the signatures were not those of the chairman and treasurer. When taxed, accused admitted his guilt.

The jury returned a true bill on all eight charges involving the sum of £B3/9/10, the property of the Millerton School Committee.

Mr. H. Lovell said that prisoner was married with four childfen. He was born in Scotland and served for four years at the war. On getting his discharge he was engaged as a miner in Scotland. He was married in 1916 and arrived here in March, 1926, when he was engaged in the Millerton mine. He was appointed secretary to the School Committee at Millerton. Temptations were placed in his way and he committed the offences.

His Honor said that the forgery of cheques each month showed deliberation.

Mr. Lovell said the prisoner had purchased a house and was pressed for funds, and in addition becanie addicted to drink. He asked for probation, saying that a term of imprisonment would have a demoralising effect on his family. The probation ofiicer said that it was not likely that the prisoner would err again.

Mr. A. A. Wilson, for the Crown, said he did not oppose the application for probation. He would point out, however, that the money had not been recovered, and this should receive consideration if probation were granted.

His Honor said that the prisoner had pleaded guilty to eight charges of forgery and one of theft. The crimes had extended over several months. It was quite clear front the depositions that the thefts had been committed many times over a period of months. The probation officer, said that he hesitated to favour probation, owing to the seriousness of the offences. His Honor also was of the opinion that it was not a case for probation. Since his apprehension, the prisoner had been frank and open, and owing to this his sentence would be reduced. In the depositions it was stated that the money had been spent in drink. The sentence of the Court was three months’ hard labour on each count, the sentences to be concurrent.