SHOPKEEPERS DEFRAUDED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 16 March 1928, Page 4

SHOPKEEPERS DEFRAUDED.

VALUELESS CHEQUES USED

FARMER ADMITS OFFENCES,

Evidence on charges of forging and uttering and attempting to obtain credit by means of valueless cheques was heard against Harold Middleton Lee, farmer, of Hawera, who appeared on remand before Messrs R. W. J. McNeill and G. A. Burgess, Justices of the Peace, in the Hawera, Court this momin.

Lee was charged (a) that at Hawera on March 13 he attempted fraudulently to obtain goods and cash to the value of £8 from David Strachan by falsely representing that a cheque for that 'sum, purporting to be drawn by James Winks, was valid; (b) that on March 12 he forged the name of James Winks to a cheque for £9 7s and uttered the cheque to George and Doughty, of Hawera; and (c) that on the same day he forged the same signature to a cheque for £3 and uttered the cheque to Adamson and Robb, of Hawera Accused, who was represented by Mr. 1\ l/Dea, pleaded guilty to all three counts on the conclusion of evidence, and was committed for trial. The prosecution was conducted by Sergeant J. Henry. Evidence that at about 1.15 p.m. on March 13 accused called at the shop and ordered goods to the value ot 5s offering m pa3mient a cheque for £S drawn in favour of W. Phillips and bearing a signature James Winks, was given by David Strachan, clothier and mercer of The goods were not handed 'over, witness being doubtful concerning Die cheque and suggesting that it be referred to the bank. Accused agreed to this and said he would call later for the goods and the change. On being sent to the bank the cheque was returned marked “signature forged.” • Witness then communicated with the police and handed tie cheque over. When accused returned to the shop at about 2 o’clock witness informed him the bank considered the cheque had been forged and ho seemed surprised. s Mr O’Dea: Was accused quite sober? Witness: No, noT quite sober. ■Charless Sprott Robb, salesman employed- by Messrs Adamson and Robb, deposed to having sold goods to the value of £1 4s to accused who came to the shop at abput one o’clock on the afternoon of March 12. In payment accused handed over a cheque for £3 payable to Robert Johns and signed James Winks. Accused was given the o-oods and the chhnge. When, on -the following day, the cheque was sent to Ihc- bank it was returned with the intimation that the signature had been forged. When in the shop accused had referred the cheque, to Air Adamson with the laughing query: “Is it any good?” Mr Adamson had replied: “Yea it’s good for a few more like that.” Replying to Mr O’Dea witness said that when in the shop accused smelt cf liquor. Witness did not notice until the cheque was returned by the bank that it bore merely the date, 12th, and that the month ha'd been left out. Further examined by Sergeant Henry witness said the signature appeared to be in normal writing A SUIT OF CLOTHES. Bruce Carl Arnold, salesman employed by Messrs George and Doughty, said that about ten o’clock on the same day he sold a suit of clothes valued at £5 to accused, who gave a cheque for £9 7s payable to W. Jones and signed James Winks. In presenting the cheque accused said to -witness: “I have a Wink’s cheque here,” and in' reply to a .question as to which Winks, accused replied “James Winks.” The cheque was accepted, accused taking away the goods and tnc balance of the cheque in cash. When sent to the bank the cheque had been returned as a forgery. , , “He did not appear to be drunk, though lie smelt of liquor,” said witness in reply to Mr. O’Dea. Hugh Rodgers, tailor, of Hawera, residing at the same, boarding-house .as accused, said that a cheque-book, including the numbers of the cheques produced in court during the earlier evidence, had been issued to him by the Bank of New Zealand. Witness last used the book on March 8, and it had then contained a few forms unused. A visit paid by witness to the bank on March 8 was his last recollection of the book until he was communicated with by the bank after March 13. Till then he had supposed the book was still in his coat pocket. Witness, could not remember giving accused the book or any forms from it, though accused could have had the forms if he had asked for them.

NG AUTHORITY FOR SIGNATURE.

Shown the cheques alleged to be forged, James Winks, farmer, of Hawera., stated in evidence that the signatures were not his, nor did he know the persons in whose favour they were drawn. No person had- any authority to use his signature. Witness did not know of any other person in the district having a similar surname and Christian name to his own. Answering Mr. O’Dea, witness said he had known accused for about 20 years, and he would say that accused’s downfall was largely due to his drinking habits. Further evidence that the cheque forms had been issued' by the Bank of New Zealand to Hugh Roger, and that, in his opinion the signatures were not genuine was given by an official of the bank, Robert Nicoll Morpeth.' “When I asked accused whose was the cheque book, he said it was his own,” said -Constable Mullan, who, following the report made by David Stratchan, had interviewed accused, and found a cheque book in his possession. Accused had first contended that the cheque given to Strachan had been received by -him from a man named Phillips in payment for .some cattle sold* to the latter, and that Phillips had worked for James Winks. “I PUT THAT OVER.” When, on the following day, witness showed accused the cheque returned i>v the bank to A dam-son and. Robb, accused said. “Yes, 1 put that over and 1 signed it.” Hi? also admitted having issued a cheque in similar manner to George and Doughty. Accused afterwards gave a written statement to witness to the effect that he had asked Rodgers for a cheque and had, been given a book. Accused admitted he bad forged the signature of .Taxnras Winks to the three cheques and issuing them as detailed ill earlier evidence, and had stated, that drink had influenced his conduct.

Accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was renewed in the previous terms, £IOO in personal recognisance and surely for a similar amount.