Peculiar Case of Forgery

Manawatu Times, Volume 59, Issue 272, 20 November 1934, Page 7

Peculiar Case of Forgery

Nothing to Gain by Actions CITY COUNCIL CLERK PROSECUTED Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Last Night. "It is a most extraordinary ease, for defendant did not stand to gain anything by it," stated James Tyler, city engineer, in giving evidence in the Police Court when Thomas Ivil, a middle-aged clerk, employed in the engineer’s department at the Auckland City Council, appeared on summons on 10 charges of forgery of dockets fui cartage, by altering the date and serial numbers. The amount involved in the charges was about £23. Witness stated that, by using carbon copies and altered dockets for attaching to vouchers, defendant had caused Ferguson and Kew, contractors, to he overpaid to the extent of £155 for road metal and motor hire. When the firm was approached in the matter they appeared to bo dumbfounded and to heve no knowledge of the position.

In reply to defendant’s counsel (Mr Hogben), witness said he considered the firm’s lack of a bookkeeping system was such that members of the firm would not.be aware of having been paid twice for certain items. He had the fullest confidence in defendant, who was a very thorough and reliable man. His personal opinion was that he would be worthy of employment again. Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M.: How did In? stand to gain?

Witness: That is what makes .it. so incredible. He cannot stand to gain anything. The Magistrate: Would he expect to receive any of the overpaid money back from the firm? Witness: When I saw both members of the firm they seemed genuinely taken aback. They' appeared not to be aware that they had been overpaid, and immediately refunded the money.

Witness added that defendant’s explanation to him of the position was that he had taken home some vouchers and inadvertently they were burned with some newspapers. • ■

The statement that he had done defendant many kindnesses during the illness of defendant’s father was made by Thomas Henry Ferguson. Defendant had never received any benefit from the business. He had known defendant for four or five years. Witness met him prior to last Christmas, and was told that some of the vouchers had been accidentally burned at defendant’s home. The value of the vouchers was stated to be £6O or £7O. However, accused said he would fix the matter up, but did not mention the method he proposed to adopt. About three months ago, in response to a message, witness went to defendant and was told there was a bit of trouble over altering dockets to make up money which had not been paid, owing to the accidental burning of the vouchers. Later he received a demand from the City Council for tho repayment of £155, which was paid immediately. Accused, who pleaded guilty, wag committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail of £2O was allowed.