STUDENTS TO BE TRIED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18565, 24 November 1923, Page 12

STUDENTS TO BE TRIED.

DUNEOIN FORGERY CHARGES.

QUESTION OF AUTHORITY.

MAGISTRATE'S ? DOUBTS.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.J DUNEDIN, Friday. Mr. H. W. Bundle, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the Police Court today on th« points of law raised by Mr. J. B. Callan, in the cases in which Gordon Stuart McLauchlan and Herbert Hall Webb were charged with forging an examination paper in general hygiene purporting to be the work of Herbert Hall Webb, as a candidate for the teacher's "D" certificate examination, but in reality being the work of Gordon Stuart McLauchlan; and that in which StewartBell MacLennau was separately charged with forging a slip purporting to be signed by Gordon Stuart McLauchlan, in respect to a practical test in a music examination.

The magistrate said that the accused MacLennan was charged with forgery. It was contended that the evidence for the Crown did not establish a prima facie case, and that the charge should be dismissed. The accused and McLauchlan were fellow students. McLauchlan was to sit for a music test on September 5. By agreement between them MacLennan impersonated him, and signed a slip in his name. Section 290 of the Crimes Act, 1908, defined forgery as the making of a false document knowing it to be false with the intent that it shall in any way be used or acted on as genuine. The facts in the present case showed a clear knowledge of falsity, and intention that the document signed should be acted on as genuine, but a false document was defined in section 288. It was admitted by the Crown, said tne magistrate, that the document in question came, if at all, within the terms of sub-section A, namely, " a document, the whole Or some material part whereof purports to be made by, or on behalf of, any person who did not make or authorise the making thereof, or which, though made by, or by the authority of, the person who purports to make it, is falsely made as to time or place of making where either is material." Mr. Callan had contended that the signature on the slip was made by MacLennan with the authority of McLaughlan. He said that the acts of the parties concerned clearly showed that no other construction was reasonable if possible. He therefore considered that the signatures being made by MacLennan with McLaughlan's authority the document was not & false document, as defined in section 288. Mr. Adams, for the Crown, had contended that McLaughlan could not give any authority to MacLennan to do an act which he and MacLennan himself knew must be done by McLachlan personally, and that therefore i the question of authority could not enter into the matter. The magistrate, continuing, said their opinion at first was that clearly the grammatical construction of subsection A disposed of the charge in favour of the .accnsed, but after further consideration he had strong donbts whetherMcLauchlan could in fact of law authorise MacLennan to sign his name. The examination was a purely personal one. It was to . test McLauchlan'* mentality. He and MacLennan conspired to commit a fraud, and McLauchlan, in pursuance of the fraud, did an act and attempted to shelter himself by saying, " Yes, but my co-conspirator authorised me." ■ But from the first moment when the arrangement was entered into, the other defendant knew that McLauchlan could not authorise him to do the act. Any purported authority was, and must be, fictitious. As he (the magistrate) had these doubts, he did not propose to dismiss the charge.' : * . , . The three accused, who reserved their defence, were committed to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being allowed in their own recognisances of . £50 each.