ALLEGED FORGERY AND THEFT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XVIII, Issue 1776, 16 January 1923, Page 5

ALLEGED FORGERY AND THEFT.

CONCLUSION OF KING TRIAL. SERIOUS CHARGES. At the Magistrate's Court on Saturday and Monday the further taking of evidence for the prosecution in the case of George King, ex-Public Works overseer, charged on thirtytwo counts of forgery and theft, was proceeded with. The evidence in the first series of the charges (nine in number) relating mainly to J. Cullen's contract, was published in our issues of Thursday and Saturday. The charges dealt with on Saturday and Monday are too lengthy and numerous to mention, but are less involved, and concern several local residents. The following is the evidence of the principal witnesses in the second series of charges,, all of which pertain to the falsifying of Public Works Department vouchers, forgeries and thefts generally:— THREE FORGED SIGNATURES. Harold W. Hill said he was a farmer at Kaitangaweka. The signatures on each of three vouchers purporting to be his receipt for sums of £4O, £60,, and £2O 5s Bd, were all forgeries, and he did not receive any of the money on the dates in question. Witness considered the signatures bore spme relation to his own, and in some cases appeared to have been traced. He had not worked on any of the contracts referred to in the vouchers. "MIX-UP IN THE OFFICE." L. A. Higgins, farmer and contractor, Kaitangaweka, gave particulars of several contracts let to him by accused. One, on the Pututaha Road, for 1% miles formation, was begun on November 5, 1921, and finished at the end of July, 1922. Payment for this work was received fairly regularly, usually at the end of the month. On one occasion King personally interviewed witness, saying there was some money still to come to him on the job. There was "some sort of a mix-up in the office," and King promised witness on his word of honour, that if witness would give him a receipt for the amount due, he (King) would repay him when he got his money from the Government. Witness thereupon gave the accused a receipt for the amount —about £2O —on a leaf torn from his pocketbook. He had never received this £2O from King.

ALLEGED FORGED SIGNATURE

John P. Cullen farmer, Aria, swore that his signature at the bottom of a voucher purporting to be a receipt for £2 14s 6d was a forgery., He did not do the work set out on the vouchers. On one occasion he carted three pipes, for which he was paid £1 2s 6d by accused. He was certain he had never received £2 14s, and also that he never signed the vouchers bearing the signature, "J. Cullen." MEALS AND HORSE HIRE. John Fletcher, boardinghouse keeper at Kopaki, was the next witness, and said that during the last two years, accused frequently visited his house for meals and to hire a horse. At first he paid cash, but after a while started to obtain credit for both. On July 6, 1922, King owed £4 4s for meals and horse hire. He remembered signing a voucher for £4 4s at the request of accused. He did not bother to read the contents. He just signed it and understood he was being paid his account for meals, etc. He did not do any of the work described on the voucher. He once worked seven days for the Public Works Department, but that was in September, 1922. He remembered a Public Works Department official hiring a horse, for which Mrs Fletcher was paid cash. The hire of this horse had nothing to do with the"£4 4s owing to witness, which was paid on July 6, 1922. i AN IMAGINARY WORKMAN. i . Samuel Hunter, Ohura, declared he had never done the work set out on exhibit 4, and the signature was a forgery. Furthermore, he had not received £7 7s on March 6, 1922. He had noticed that the name of W. Cato appeared on the voucher as having worked with witness. There was never any such person working with him. The only Cato he knew was W. Cato, Te Kuiti. The reason why he was sure his signature was a forgery was because he was not in the habit of joining the capital H with the following letter u.

WHO IS W. CATO?

William S. Cato, ironmonger, Te Kuiti, said the signature "W. Cato" on exhibit 4 was not written by him, and he had not received £8 Is for the work alleged on the voucher to have been done by W. Cato. He knew the accused, and frequently had business dealings with him. The signature "W. Cato" did not in any way resemble his own. As far as he knew he was the only W. Cato in the district. •

No charge was preferred against the accused in respect to the evidence of the last witness. THE MANGAITI ROAD. F. E. Pittams, farmer, Kopaki, said, the signature on exhibit 5, purporting to be a receipt for £l4 ss, was a forgery. The voucher showed he had received £l4 5s for work on the Mangaiti Road. As a matter of fact, he had never worked on this road in his life. The name J. Ford also appeared on the voucher, but no such man worked with witness at that particular time. He did "not receive £ls for work described on exhibit 6, and his signature thereon was a forgery. At that time he was working on the Mapara South Road with two men named Cuff and Coldstream.

Jens Hansen, labourer, said he comprised a party working on the Mangaiti Road, but Pittams was not one of the number. No such man as J. Ford worked on the contract.

F. Bernhard, a member of the above party, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

"CHARGE IT UP."

R. E. Cuff, chainman for the Public Works Department, said that Pittams worked with himself and one Coldstream, on the Mapara South Road for about six days. When authorising witness to do the necessary survey work on the Mapara South Road, accused said he had no authority for any expenditure on that road, but would charge it up to the Mangaokewa Road block. \ FATHER AND SON. Louis Alfred Higgins was again called. The signature "L. Higgins" on exhibit 7 was a forgery, and he did not receive £6 on October 5, 1921. Furthermore, he had not done the work accredited to him on the voucher as being performed between August and September, 1921. The signature "W. Higgins" on the 1 voucher was not that of his son. Wilfred Higgins, son of the previous witness, swore that both his own and his father's signatures on certain vouchers were forgeries. A FALSE VOUCHER. A. H. Drinnan, a Waimiha farmer, stated that the signature "A. Drinnan" on exhibit 8, purporting to be a receipt for the payment of £l4, was not written by him, and he did not do the work on the Mangapeehi-Manaitu-Tutu Roads as described on the voucher. I. Green, whose name appeared on the voucher, was not employed by. him on the work. Witness and his brother, F. D. Drinnan, completed a road formation contract near Mapiu, for which they were paid £l5O by accused and the fore- f man, Green. He spelt his name "Drinnan." The signature on the document produced was "Drinnon." FURTHER FORGERIES. E. J. Peterson, carrier, Te Kuiti, deposed to having done carrying work for the Public Works Department in and around Te Kuiti for the past nine years. The signature "E. J. j Petersen," on one of the vouchers, j which purported to be a receipt for £5, was not that of witness. He spelt his name "Peterson." He did a portion of the work shown on the voucher, for which he received £2 10s in February, 1922, leaving a balance of £1 I3s 6d, which was paid on June 6, 1922. Witness's signature on the second voucher, forming part of exhibit 9, was also a forgery, and he did not cancel the stamp. He did hot receive £6 10s on June 6, 1922. TELLING THE "D'S." Frederick Bredenbeck, farmer, Aria, said that accused authorised him to put* in a filling on the Mokauiti Road from the junction of the Ohura-Mokau Road. The work was finished on December 2, 1921. The third voucher, exhibit 10, representing the final payment, contained witness's forged signature. He had never seen this voucher until it was shown him by Detective Sweeney. The voucher was supposed to be a receipt for £23 8s on December 9, 1922.

The signature thereon was nothinglike his genuine signature, and appeared to have been traced. The accused accosted him at Pio Pio on November 30 last, saying, "What do you mean by telling the 'D's' I never paid you," or words to that effect. Witness replied, "1 never." Accused said, "Oh, yes; you did. What about that £26 10s voucher?"

Witness replied, "I never saw any £26 10s voucher. The one I saw with Sweeney was for £IOO odd, and the one I saw with my 'dummy' name to was for £IOO odd."

Accused then said, "Did you never sign your name with pencil, and I jnk them over." Witness replied, "Never in your life." A bystander named Reid then remarked, "I am sure Mr King would not beat you," and the incident closed. A FICTICIOUS WORKMAN. William McGinn, surfaceman, said that up to three years ago he was permanently employed by the Public Works Department. His signa-

ture on exhibit 11, purporting to be a receipt for the payment of £23 16s was a forgery, and he had not l-eceived the money in question. Furthermore, he did not do the work described on the voucher. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. The trial concluded with lengthy technical evidence by several Public Works officials, Oscar Moller and Detective Sweeney. Accused, who had preserved a demeanour of stolid calm throughout the proceedings, was thereupon formally committed to stand his trial at the next session of the Hamilton Supreme Court on February 27, 1923.