The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1866. SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 220, 19 November 1866, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1866. SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. [Before his Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.] This Day. His Honor took his seat at 10 o'clock. The grand jury were in attendance, and having returned a true bill against John Somers for forgery, ■were congratulated by the judge on the lightness of their labors, presented by him with the thanks of the colony, and discharged. FORGERY. John Somers pleaded Not guilty to an indictment charging him with this offence. A second count charged him with uttering. He was undefended. Mr. Adams having stated the case for the prosecution, called the following witnesses: — Thomas Moore Wright: I am agent of the Bank of New Zealand, at Blenheim. I saw the prisoner at the bank, on the 11th June last. He presented four cheques. Those produced are the same. Each cheque was for £30, dated the sth June, on the Union Bank, at 'Wellington, signed Ingles and Pasley. This was the correct way of receiving payment at Blenheim. I did not know the man. lie asked for cash for the cheques. I declined to cash the cheques for a stranger. He said he wanted to go to Nelson, and must have money to get there, somehow. I again said I could not cash the cheques. He then told, a plausible story, as to how he had three cheques of the same amount. He said he asked for three in the event of his losing one. He asked if he could have some money on account. I said no, and asked him how much he wanted. He said £40, and I consented to give him that amount. The cheques were for £90 altogether, and he said the money was due to him, and he had got the three cheques drawn in case he should lose one. After drawing him cheques for £iO, he asked for £50. lat first refused and then drew him a cheque for £50. I asked him a number of questions as to his position, and how long he had been in Ingles and Pasley employ. He said two years ; that he was going to Nelson overland, and wanted to huy a horse and other necessaries to take him there. He said he had received leave of absence for a fortnight. I said it was not the signature of Mr. Ingles. He said it was Mr. Pasley's. I knew the firm and communicated with them. I saw the prisoner three or four days afterwards. He inquired if the cheques had been paid. I said there had been no mail. He was intoxicated. I told him to come next day when he was not drunk. He brought a man with him, Avhom he said he owed 30/, which he wish to pay out of the 90/. He came at 10 o'clock next morning, and drew cheques against the amount that stood to his credit, provided the cheques had been paid. The cheques he drew for the balance were left in my hands. They are now in Blenheim. These were lodged in custody till I was advised of the payment of the others. This was not customary, but I did it with him, because he said he was going away.

To the prisoner : Mr. Pasley is not here. To the Court : I left the matter to the Crown prosecutor, Mr. Pasley was not bound over.

To the prisoner : My suspicions were not aroused, because I had not seen Mr. Pasley's signature. I knew the signature of Mr. Ingles.

Henry i_cton Ingles : lama member of the firm of Ingles and Pasley, who are Alexander and Henry Ingles and Clinton Pasley. We are sheep tanners. The prisoner was in our employ from the 3rd January till the sth June. He was cook, his wages being 255. per week. He was paid on the sth and left two days after. He received his wages at different times, and when he left only £3 was coming to him, which was paid by my brother, in my presence, by a cheque on the firm. This was the morning of the sth June. Mr. Pasley was not present. He left on the 4th and came back on the 9th, the prisoner had left the day byfore. My brother usually paid cheques. The other partners were entitled to draw, but my brother usually drew the business cheques. I remember Mr. Pasley drawing two only. The signatures on the cheques produced are not those of any member of our firm. lam quite certain Mr. Pasley's signature is not there. I should say one of them is an imitation of my brother's. The prisoner usually got his wages in cheques, and that given in settlement was given by my brother, who usually put a dash under his name, like that in the cheque produced. We had no account with the Union Bank at Wellington when the prisoner left us, nor at the Bank of New Zealand. The account at Wellington was closed in January. A book of Union Bank cheques was left in my brother's desk, in a drawer in my bedroom. We cannot say that any were missing. We, never owed the prisoner £30, on any ac-. count whatever. His wages never exceeded _10 or £12.

To the prisoner: As a rule I can swear to the handwriting of all the partners. I don't know of any transaction between you and the firm of a private nature.

To the Court: I saw the prisoner every day, at the station. I thought him educated above his station. I saw his writing. I think I understood he was very well educated. We got no character with him, except that he was a very good servant.

The prisoner said he would direct the attention of

the jury to one or two points. He commented on the absence of Mr f Pasley. The first witness was called, and said he saw the prisoner write the names on the back of the cheques, which his Honor said was in adifferent writing from that in the body of the cheque.

The prisoner said the evidence of the bank manager not being substantiated was worthless, and the money paid to him was paid on his own responsibility. It was not likely the last witness could swear to the signature of his partners, and the case could not be proved against him in the absence of the only member of the firm who could identify the signature on the cheques.

His Honor asked the last witness if the prisoner had requested the attendance of Mr. Pasley when before the Magistrate, and was informed that he had not. He then summed up to the jury who without leaving the box found the prisoner guilty of uttering.

His Honor having requested information respecting the prisoner's previous character, was informed by Serjeant Goodall and Mr. Ingles, that he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for larceny, before the District Court at Blenheim.

His Honor said the offence of forgery was one that must be put down with a strong hand. It was not at all in the prisoner's favor that he had already been 'convicted of larceny, and it was unfortunate that the incautious manner of conducting business had facilitated his fradulent designs. He should sentence him to four years penal servitude, to commence from the expiration of the sentence which he was now uudergoing.

This concluded the criminal business, and the jury were discharged with the thanks of the Queen and the colony.

James, who had been convicted of perjury, was brought up and asked if he was ready with his sureties. Messrs. John De Carle and Joseph Nicholson said they were willing to become bound for him.

His Honor explained to them that the defendant would be expected to come forward and receive the sentence of the Court, in the event of the Court of Appeal deciding that the conviction was good. He would be expected to appear at the sitting of this Court in 1868, which would follow that of the next Court of Appeal. The parties having entered into recognizances of 25? each, and James of 100/, the latter was discharged.

The Court then adjourned sine die.