DEFRAUDED BY HIS WIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12853, 29 April 1905, Page 2 (Supplement)

DEFRAUDED BY HIS WIFE.

EXTRAORDINARY STORY OF FORGED

CHEQUES. Before the Birmingham Assize Judge on March 24 William F. Bonham, an ex-publi-can, claimed from Lloyd's Bank, Limited, the sum of £92 8s 6d, deposited with the bank, and interest thereon. The extraordinary feature of the case is that the money has been withdrawn, but Mr. Bonham denied that twelve or thirteen cheques drawn since 1901, although purporting to be signed by him, did in fact bear hi* signature. He bluntly described them as forgeries. Mr. McCarthy, on behalf of the bank, asserted that there had been great dishonesty somewhere, and the bank could not possibly sit down and pay the money without having a public inquiry. Mr. Miller, the clerk to the Erdington Bank, said that the requests for cheques were written on soiled, torn pieces of paper. The bank supplied blank cheques, which came back duly filled up and signed. On the last cheque "To close account" was written.

Mr. Gold, the manager, described the last visit of Mr. Bouham, who, asking for a sum of £2, was told that the account was closed. Subsequently he called and said that eight of the cheques drawn on his account were forgeries. On being asked who forged the cheque he replied that it was the little girl, alluding to his granddaughter Ethel, a child of about twelve years of age. On another occasion, when he brought the child with him, he said that he had been robbed. The little girl began to cry, and Mr. Bonham asked her what she was crying for. and if she had'signed the cheques. She replied, "Yes." A few days later Mr. Bonham brought his wife, stating that she had come to say she had signed the cheques. Mrs. Bonham's story was that she had come to clear her husband.

Another bank official described an interview with the little girl, who, when asked by Mr. Bonham who told her to sign the cheques, replied " Mammy." Mr. Hugo Young, for the plaintiff, said that while it was clear that a fraud had been committed, they could not for a moment believe that a man and his wife would deliberately conspire to cheat the bank. The wife would undoubtedly suffer, but-lie presumed the bank would consider it their duty to prosecute, and she would scarcely run the risk of further punishment. The real history of the case was that the woman, who was now repentant and anxious to unburden her .soul, had been defrauding her husband. She was his second wife. Not only has she drawn the money out of the bank, but she had also executed several forged mortgages on his property. Ihe plaintiff, who was very 'deaf, said that lie was seventy years of ago,.and his wife, whom he had married ten years ago, was now about thirty-five. Every one of the disputed cheques, he declared, was a forgery. MVs. Bonham entered the witness-box and tearfully confessed that she was the sole delinquent in the matter. She had drawn a number of cheques on the plaintiff's account without his knowledge or authority fcr the purpose of keeping up various extravagances. She had got into debt with drapery clubs, of which she did not wish her husband to know. She had intercepted registered letters in which remittances were esni from the bank, and had obtained the pass-book from plaintiff's drawer. The jury found for Mi. Bonham for the whole of the amount claimed, with cost#.