ALLEGED FORGERY.

Northern Advocate, 25 July 1923, Page 8

ALLEGED FORGERY.

" \ NATVIE ON A CHKOI i

COURT PEOCEEUJ N'G S.

At the Whanj,arei Ai: u■, .st rate's Court this morning,, befojv Mr F. H. Levien, S.M., a young named Philip Charles Rive, for vLoni-Mr H. D. Harrison appeared, »va> charged with having, on or about July 7, forged the name of W. Dudley t,i :\ chequo for £5 4/ drawn on the of New South Wales, and that )<" caused Frances Maurer to act : <>!' as though it were genuine.

Frances Helena Maiiror, <fnploycd by Mr Slincksmith, a jevw ll' > in Cameron Street, identified acri'.-'-ed as the man who had between 11.45 a.m. and 1 p.m. on July 7 entere.d tin hop and presented the cheque (produced), asking her to cash it. She know W. Dudlev and she told her employe v so. After a conversation Avith Shiv.ivsnnth relative to the cheque she hand. d over the money.' Her employer ar< mpanied her into the shop and had an opportunity of seeing accused. On the following Monday the cheque was returned from, the bank, and witness later in the day went with Dudley to a building in course of erection in Maiuiu Road, where accused was interviewed. On that occasion she had not. positively identified him. It was getting dark, and although she had had a good look at accuscd she had not lilted to say it was he without having another chance to see him. He was only alongside the car for about a minute, and. she was sitting on the far side from him. Next day she and Constable Burnett went to another building in course of erection in Cror.s Street, where a number of men were working. There she pointed out accused to the constable. She was absolutely positive that accuscd wos the man who cashed the cheque. Prior Fo seeing him either on the Maunu Road or Cross Street she had supplied a description of him to the police.

In reply to Mr Harrison witness, said th«at she had no special lunch hour on Saturdays. Her employer usually went to iunch at noon, but on the day in quo' tioit he was busy and had lunch in the shop. When first asked the time when the chcque was cashed she had said it was between 11.45 a.m. and 12.15. Not having looked at the time she could not say exactly when slic had gone to lunch, but the cheque had certainly not been cashed before 3M5 a.m., and she believed she had g-one to lunch at afrout 12.20 p.m. or 12.30 p.nn At the time the chequo was presented there had been three or four other customers in the shop. She hod her hat on ready to go to lunch when accused came into the shop, but as two or three others came in she took it off again and attended to accuscd only. Her employer had attended to the other customers. Aceused would not have been in the shop more than about three minutes. When Dudley came in after the chcque had been returned, witness described the person who had cashed the chcque. D.udley had then said that he wanted witness to see two boy*. She went in a car with Rive, :-enr.. and Dudley. It. was after 5 o'clock then. The two bovs Were met

and sojhe one beckoned them to approach the car. After one had gone away again, some one asked her if it was cither of them, She replied: iloh't think so." She was not. sure fi the time. Witness had ,?aid to the father that she did not think it was. his boy wlm had had the cheque. Witness denied that she had said to Jiive, seiir.. as ho was leaving the car at hi" own gate, that she wias glad it was not his boy. She had had little conversation with Rive, senr. When she eonfronted the t .vo boys she had net com plained that it was too daik to see anyone properly. On the "return trip towards, Whangarei she had tol.i Dudley that she was doubtful am! would like to see the boy again, as sne hnd not liked to say anything until she w-r. Mire. The reply was that unler.r he found out who it had been, Dudley would place the 'matter in the hands of the police. On the Tuesday Constable Burnett, Witness >and Dudley went to Cross Street, where some onintroduced her to accused. She asked whether :he had not met. him before and ho replied not until the previous evening, although he said that he had been in the shop a fortnight previously. She had then told Constable Biir iiett. that she recognised accused the mian who had cashed the cheque. When he had ' come into the shop he \v;s dre;-<ed in his working clothes ord slip, thought he had just knocked cF work. TT<> was in a ."rev working shirt and suit, but lie had no hat on.

Be-exi-miiied bv Detective Do >Torvillo, witness said that when the cur ,ve ; t out to Mnumi tioad two boy:;. Iki/I approached the car. Accused one. and ho had gone away a minulo later and had stood oil the footpath. He could'have seen her in the car. "Wh ">-i :<1)C : went up t-o Cross Street with Con •

•<tufylv>. Burnett she had »seen accur.ed iien}' the building'about 20 yardr, away' a.ndl ; <lio had ' -recognised ' ' him a?. th,<s j you jig man she had come to see. There j hadiboeir no- need for any introduction, i

ShiH'ksmi th, jeweller, sulci that when the cheque was brought to him in the shop by Miss Maurer he

'had .given her permission to cash it. h'frr jfche purpose of having a look at the pors'in presenting it- lie had followed her into the shop, and he* i'dentifiod ac-'.-(•bo'l that The ;-h'oqiic had boon returned by the bark endorsed "Signature unlike." Consequently he telephoned Dudley a;ul subsequently

handed the cheque to him. On the next occasion he met Dudley they decided to place the matter in the hands of the police. At that time he had given a full description of accused, and on the Wednesday following he saw half a dozen or so men standing in a row at the Police Station, and he had no difficulty in picking out accused from amongt them.

In; reply to Mr Harrison, witness said (that he had not spoken to accused in the shop. On a later occasion, When he went with Constable Burnett to the Policc Station, he had noticed a motor car standing outside the office, but had not seen who were the occupants; When he saw the men assembled at >the station he said: "This is the only riuan anything like him. The others were similar in the matter of age only.

William Goodyear Dudley, building contractor, said that the signature on the cheque was a forgery. The chequeform was not from his book. Miss Maurer had supplied him with a description of the person who had cashed the chcque and subsequently accused and another young fellow were met riding bicycles at about 5 o'clock in Maunu Road. When the two had responded to the signal to approach one mained, but accused immediately went back to the footpath, jumped on his bicycle and rode away. At one time accused was in witness' employ, and had dealt with his cheques, and would therefore be familiar with his signature.

In reply to Mr Harrison witness said that it was about four months since accused had last worked for him. Witness swore that accuscd got on the bicycle and rode away, and declared that he would be surprised to learn that he had walked home leading the bicycle. When accused approached the car he had handed a key to his father and then gone away.

L. Campbell, clerk in the Bank of New South Wales, said that the cheque had been taken from a book issued by him to Rive and Philpott.

Robert J. Dando, accountant at the Bank of Australasia, said that he had had 26 years' experience of handwriting. He had made a careful examination of the signature in comparison with another and he was strongly of opinion that they were written by one person. Cross-examined, witness said that, although not an infallible expert, he claimed to have a pretty good knowledge cf handwriting through constant contact with many styles. He. wis of opinion that the additional weight in the down strokes of the signature on the cheque was an extra effort on the part of the writer.

Constable Burnett described interview with accused in Cross Street, when lie had asked whether he knew anything ftbout the forged cheque. Accused had denied all knowledge of it. Miss Maurer had identified Rive prior to that. A description of accused had been given to witness by Miss Maurer and it answered well with his appearance. Shucksnvith had identified accused'from. amongst others without hesitation at the station. Accused had subsequently made.a written statement. Witness had tested the time taken to ride a bicycle between Shucksmith's shop and the place where accused h«d bee,n working.

That closed the ease for the prosecution and the Court adjourned.

INFOE MATION DISMISSED. When the Court resumed after the luncheon adjournment the Magistrate "dismissed the information, on the ground of insufficient cviclence. In the course of his summing up Mr L-evicn said that the evidence of Miss Maurer showed that when she first wer.t to identify accused she had no!: done so definitely, and later she had said io Mr Hive, sear., that she did r.ot think it was his boy. Accused had :-tated tlvit he had been in the jeweller's shop a fortnight before and that he was net, therefore, totally a stranger !•: her. Whan she went to Cross Street to identify accused she had said: "That is the boy, isn't it?" She had not been definite on the subject. Shricksmith also, in identifying accused from amongst a mufibcr of young mer, had stated: "This is the only man anything like him," which was also indefinite. No evidence >-«&d been called to show whether any other boys had been in a similar position to defendant, and had had an opportunity of gaining familiarity with Dudley's signature and a knowledge of his bank.