ALLEGED FORGERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18685, 15 April 1924, Page 12

ALLEGED FORGERY.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.

fcHAKGE - AGAINST OFFICIAL,

SUM OF £190 OBTAINED. X=

ACCUSED Vent FOR TRIAL.

The alleged forgery of a Post Office Savings Bank withdrawal receipt for £190 resulted in the appearance at the Police Court yesterday, before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., '".of Alexander Linton (Mr. Ostler), aged 42, a clerk in the Savings Bank Department. Nearly four hours were occupied in hearing the evidence. Edward Knowles, a farm labourer employed at Tuakau, deposed that on December 24, 1923, he drew £10 at Auckland, and as the interest had not been made up for some time he left the bank book, to be posted to him. As he did not receive it, on February 27 ho called at the bank, where he was shown a withdrawal slip for £190, bearing a signature purporting to be that of Edward Knowles. The handwriting and signature was not known to witness, and ho had not authorised anyone to draw upon his account.

Initials on the Slip. A ledger-keeper, Frank Edward Daly, stated that lie had boon handed the. withdrawal slip for £190, purporting to bo signed by Edward Knowles. His initials were marksd oh the slip, and as he had not placed them there he made an official complaint. To Chief-Detective Cummings: I consider the initials are forged. I am of opinion that the writing and figures resemble the handwriting of accused. Witness had also seen figures on his ledger card, which resembled Linton's figures. Daniel Grant Henry, who was paying the withdrawals on January 4, said a withdrawal slip for £190 was handed to him over, the counter. He paid the money in cash. * . To Mr. Cummings: The person who received the cash was not known to him, and he could not identify or describe him. It was certainly not Linton.

Question of Handwriting. The supervisor of the Money Order and Savings Bank Department, Joseph James Murray, deposed that tha withdrawal slip for £190 had been shown to accused, who admitted the writing bore a similarity to his own style. He denied he had marked the ledger card or made the _ entry in the ledger. N The specimen writing by accused was that produced, and known as exhibit F. He heard Linton say to a detective he had just won £180 at the races, but when a race book was produced accused refused to give the details., Linton sorted withdrawal slips from the day upon which the alleged forgery had been perpetrated. In witness' opinion there was a. possibility the forgery toad been done outside the bank, but it would be impossible for a stranger to gain access to the ledger cards. Mr. Ostler: Is it not, a fact that £80 was stolen i from a • local office before in this manner -

Witness: I am not at liberty to answer that question. Oscar Moller, a handwriting expert, stated that the. specimen known as exhibit F was written in a hand almost identical with t&o alleged forgery. When Chief-Detective Cummings intimated that he intended to coll evidence regarding the financial operations of accused, countel raised ■an objection, but the magistrate overruled it. A cabinetmaker stated that he had supplied accused with > furniture valued at £23 in January. He met Linton by appointment, as' be understood ho was to be paid. Linton showed witness a £50 note, and this was changed, but the accused did not offer to settle his account. After the commencement of proceedings against accused; witness alleged, Linton asked him not to mention the outstanding debt in evidence. The representative of a local hardware firm deposed that his employers had obtained judgment against Linton in 1921 for a debt of £75 14s. Since then only £12 had been paid off. Detective Robertson stated that, when interviewed, accused said he supported himself and his wife upon his salary, and had no financial encumbrances. He had won some large dividends at the races, but when asked for details he refused to supply them, and would not indicate which horses he had backed. He admitted that the figures on the withdrawal slip were similar to his handwriting, but denied having made out the slip. Accused suggested that, as he had access to the withdrawal slips, if he had been guilty he could have destroyed the slip, which constituted part of the evidence. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, reserved his defence, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial Bail was fixed at £100.