AN ENGLISH JUDGE’S VIEW OF A QUESTIONABLE TRANSACTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8067, 25 April 1887, Page 3

AN ENGLISH JUDGE’S VIEW OF A QUESTIONABLE TRANSACTION.

The London Daily Telegraph of 29th January gives tho following account of a slightly out-of-thocommon trial and its results. The causa of the trial is not an unknown quantity in the colonies i William Frederick Coleman, carrying on a large business as boiler-maker at Loughborough, was indicted at Leicester Assizes on Saturday, before Mr Justice Field, for forging and uttering a bill of exchange for payment of LIO9 7s, with intent to defraud. He was further indicted for forging and uttering a bill of exchange far L 93 Bs.

Mr A. Toller prosecuted, and Mr Weightman appeared for the prisoner. The evidence, which was of a very unusual character, showed that the prisoner handed the bill of exchange to Mr J Jones, ironfounder. It purported to be drawn by W. F. Coleman, Loughborough, upon J. Jessop and Sons, engineers, Leicester, and to bo accepted by them for LlO9 ,7s, due on November 23rd last. AH the bill, except the printedportion, was proved to be in the prisoner’s handwriting. It was paid into a bank at Leicester, but before if became due Mr Jones received a letter from the prisoner apd a cheque for LOO in part payment of the bill. The letter was destroyed, but the bill was handed over to Mr Deane, solicitor for Mr Jones. Afterward the defendant was arrested for forgery, bpt meanwhile the solicitor, acting under the advice of counsel, received from the prisoner's wife the sum of Ll 9 15s, malfing up the full amount of the bill, and he then handed her the acceptance, f his document was called for but was not produced. The counsel for prisoner objected that the bill had not been shown to have been in the prisoner’s possession. The Judge held that the possession of the bill by the prisoner wife wasj audit cient. It was clear the accused had sent his wife to get possession of the bill, of course with the hope of concealing the crime, and in a novel this might be very effective, but he had foreseen this ‘f dramatic incident,” and had fully conaidered it. It would bo a gross ipiesoarriage of justice if a hill could be obtained by a vyife in that way, and an objection to its being described maintained. Further evjdenpo flaying been given as to the transaction, the jury found the prisoner guilty. Mr Weightman pointed out that the prisoner had been in business many years and had an excellent' character, and urged in mitigation of the sentence that the amouflts had been paid in full, and that no one had lost a farthing by the acts of the prisoner.' The Judge, ip passing aefltenge, said ho did not know that ffe had ever-met a more determined attempt on the part of a criminal to smother up evidence and ward off tffe consequences of the crime thafl in thig case. It was a. crime which fifty years ago ho would have expiated by death, and the offence was still of very serious importance, particularly when the forgery was in a mercantile instrument. As to his position and respectable character, that was the weapon with wffi<)h he had committed tfle offence, and lie must pass the same sentence as he would upon a poor, uneducated man—five years’ penal servitude.