ALLEGED FORGERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20868, 9 May 1931, Page 12

ALLEGED FORGERY.

COUNTY ENGINEER'S CASE.

MERCY OF LAW SOUGHT. UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION. The provision of the law which enables a judge 'to discharge an accused person from custody at any stage of the proceedings against him was unsuccessfully invoked by Mr. G. P. Finlay in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr. Finlay was appearing beforo Mr. Justice Ilerdman on behalf of Andrew Murray, engineer of the Waitemata County Council, who was charged on several counts of forging and uttering receipts. In applying for the direct discharge of Murray, Mr. Finlay said he did not want in any sense to minimise the serious ness of what accused had done or to justify the impropriety of the proceedings. He founded his application upon what lie believed to be the merciful spirit of the law. The first Offenders Probation Act of 1920 gavo to the judge the widest discretion and the fullest power to extend mercy to its utmost limit, and the courts had not been reluctant to use this authority.

There was no intentiuri on the part of the accused to get anything more than he was entitled to, said counsel, and it was sheer Carelessness on accused's part that he had not obtained proper vouchers He used improper means of recovering money that he had spent on the council's business

In answer to His Honor, tho Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, said ho could not admit that the money concerned was all money to which Murray was entitled. His Honor said ho did not think this was a case in which he should exercise the powers to which Mr. Finlay had referred. The offence was a grave one. Tho accused occupied a responsible position with a local body and was trusted by councillors and ratepayers. It seemed to the judge to be no different from cases of tho kind that came beforo the court from time to time. Mr. Finlay said if His Honor felt that tho application could not succeed then ho must take tho responsibility of pleading guilty. Technically, forgery had been committed.

Mr. Meredith, in opposing the applica ton, said he felt 6trongly that no differentiation could be made in this.caso by reason of the unfortunate result that might come upon the accused. If his employers felt there were palliating circumstances they could take that into consideration, just as the court could. However, tho offences were looked on as grave, and every other person had to submit to the course of the law. His Honor said enough had come to his notice to enable him to decide that the application should be refused. The case was not distinguishable from a multitude 6f others that had come before the court in tho last 10 years. Tho accused would bo stood down until next Wednesday and arraigned then. Mr. Finlay said he proposed then to plead guilty.