DISMISSAL OF CHARGE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22099, 3 May 1935, Page 15

DISMISSAL OF CHARGE

CASE INVOLVING CHEQUE

QUESTION OF HANDWRITING

COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE

"It would be only idle to send this case on to the Supreme Court," said Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at the conclusion of evidence for the prosecution in a case in which Bertram Stanley Goode, a young man appearing on summons, was charged with knowingly making a false document, namely, a cheque for £l5O, with intent that it should be acted on as genuine. Accused, who was represented by Mr. Sullivan, pleaded not guilty. Charles William .Tenkinson, grocer, of Princes Street, gave evidence that on December 15 a young man known to him as Martin tendered a cheque for £l5O, purporting to. be signed by J. S. Emanuel, and drawn on the Commercial Bank of Australia. It had previously come to witness' knowledge that Martin had been trying to sell a share in his father's estate and that ho had been in negotiation with Emanuel in the matter. Witness accordingly advanced Martin £ls, but the next day the cheque was returned, marked "No account," by the bank. i Joseph Solomon Emanuel said that the signature was not his, and he had no account with the bank concerned. Detective Hayes produced a statement in which accused said that Martin, whose name was Martinovich, had lived with him for some time. Martinovich frequently called in at the office whero accused worked, and would have access to the cheque book accused used, but no authority to use it. On the night of December 14, accused said, he noticed Martinovich with a cheque, and Martinovich said he had sold part of his share in his father's estate. Accused denied having signed the cheque. Detective Hayes mentioned, in reply to a question, that Martinovich had been already charged with obtaining £ls by means of a valueless cheque and was to appear before the Supremo Court.

Technical, evidence on the handwriting on the facei of the cheque, as compared with that in a letter written by accused, Martinovich's signature to a' statement, and endorsement of the cheque, was given by Henry William Scott, handwriting expert. He said there was a great contrast between the lightness of touch in Martinovich's writing and the strokes in the other examples. He was convinced that the writing on the face of the cheque was by accused. Mr. Wilson questioned witness on a number of points, witness admitting that the writer of Martinovich's two signatures must be a facile penman. "The evidence and the appearance of the documents do not convince rae," said Mr. Wilson, in dismissing the charge. "There are so many differences between the handwritings that it would be only wasting time and money to send this case on."