TEE INSURANCE FRAUDS CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 10836, 20 August 1898, Page 2 (Supplement)

TEE INSURANCE FRAUDS CASE.

In our last Saturday's Supplement we gave the commencement of the proceedings, in which Monson, Honour, and Metcalf were charged with conspiracy to defraud the Norwich Union Insurance Company. At a later hearing, Percival E. Norgate was recalled and cross-examined.

Mr. Newton asked witness whether it was not a fact that at the time when he was trying to borrow £10 he was receiving an allowance from his father of from £150 to £250 a year. Norgate said that that was so. He told Honour that he was entitled to a reversion of £600 on the death of his father.

Mr. Newton: Is it not a fact that on more than one occasion you forged your father's and mother's name?

Yes. Honour gave me a broad pen and a narrow pen, and two kinds of ink. Mr. Newton then put in several documents signed by Norgate. Norgate here stated that he had in his possession a written undertaking from Honour's solicitors promising to return all the papers. Those papers were not returned. Witness said that in July, 1896, Honour had two bills which ere forged acceptances of his father's. These bills ought to have been given up in February, 1896, when witness' mother settled the matter with Honour, but he never did so. The seven bills produced were some witness had accepted in his father's name, and were returned to him by Honour. Witness wrote the draft assignment produced from a book Honour had on life assurance.

In reply to Mr. Newton, witness said he had been away from Iris parents 10 years, and was formerly articled to a firm of solicitors, and was qualified subject to the payment of a fee. He had an allowance. Witness could not remember how many times he committed forgery. He committed forgery because Honour would not give him money unless iie did so. When Tie wrote the letter at Honour's dictation, he thought Honour would use it against two men whose names witness gave. They had got money from Honour, and witness had some. Witness saw those bills forged. The same system of swindling was gone through, and Honour knew all about it. Witness kept the draft assignment because he thought it might be useful. He very seldom saw Honour without asking him for money. He denied that the policy of insurance was a collateral security. He told Honour in 1893 that be was insured as a first-class life. Witness admitted that he was telling Honour falsehoods to get back his forged bills. Witness did not know a substitute was to be sent for him until Honour gave him the signature to copy. Mr. Newton ascertained from witness that a certain telegram, supposed to be from his mother, stating that she would settle the matter, was written by himself. He showed it to Honour for the purpose of deceiving him. The examination then led up to the circumstances attending the forgery of his mother's name for the purpose of satisfying Honour with regard to other forged documents. Mr. Newton: Why did you do that? Norgate: To get time. (Loud laughter.) Mr. Freke Palmer cross-examined witness on behalf of Monson, and Mr. Wallis on behalf of Metcalf.

The re-examination of the witness was defended, and prisoners were again remanded, applications for bail being refused.