JOSEPH MYERS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3735, 9 May 1899, Page 3

JOSEPH MYERS.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT PROCEEDINGS. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. CHARGES OF FORGERY. The hearing of the charges agains' .Joseph Myers commenced before M) Ke.nnv, S'M., and Mr Arnold, J.P., ir. Uu* Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr Stringer, Crown Prosecutor a' Christchurch," with him Mr Wilford, ap poured on behalf of tho Crown to prose cute, and Mr Jellicoe appeared for tin defendant.

Tho (list charpo taken was that o forcing an order for £312, purporting ti be signed by C. P. Skerrett, on 17th Do cember, 1897, Mr Stringer said the facts, from the Crown’s point of view were extremely simple, and it wees not necessary for hiir. lo address tho Court upon them. He culled

Priscilla Aidous, who, however, wat not in attendance.

His Worship said the Crown had bettei call another witness. IST)- Stringer thereupon called G. P. Skortott, barrister and solicitor, who said tho signature on the chequi handed to him, purporting to be signet by him, for £312, was not his. He hat no account at tho Bank of Now Zealand and no one had authority to sign hit name. Priscilla Aidous was then called. She was. she said, a tobacconist, carrying or: business in Wellington aind knew the accused. She remembered him coming to her.shop in December 1897. Accuser gave her tho cheque produced by JasJ witness, and ho also gave her one of hit own. Ho asked'her if she would lent’ him £3OO for a month. Ho said Slier rott’s cheque was the security for hit own, anti ’that ho was getting £l2 interest, and that witness could have £1( and ho could have £2. He did not sa? how lie became possessed of Mr Skorrett’i cheque She know Mr Skerrett, anc thought it was all right. She gave him her cheque for £3OO, and it had beer paid and charged to her account. Tht cheque purporting to be signed by Mi Skorictt was dated January 2, 1898. Myers said it was to be put in on that date. The loan was for a month, ant tho cheque was post dated in conse qnence. Subsequently Myers kept putting it off for another month, and an other month. Sho hold it over, and dit not present either of tho cheques. Sht was away on account of ill-health' foi some time. Ho asked her to hold it over because it was not convenient for hint to meet it. Tic told her he would pay her himself ; he did not intend that she should present Mr Skerrett’s cheque, which was only security for his own. He did not say who was paying the £l2 interest ; ho said he was getting it, but ho did not say from whom. To Mr Jellicoe; That was not her first transaction with Myers. It might have been about the previous July or August that she first commenced doing business with him. It could not have been as early as February. She would nob bo quite sure whether it was May or Juno. She had never said her first transaction with Myers was in November, 1897. Sho had never sworn it, it would ho a mistake. 'She could not say what wus the amount of her first transaction with Myers —• she could not remember. Sho had never sworn as to the amount of that transaction. She remembered giving evidence before the Official Assignee the other day. Mr Jellicoe: Did you not say—“My first transaction with Joseph Myers was about November, 1897. He applied' tern e to lend him money upon his cheque for a week—£loo, T think?” Witness: If I said it, it would be true. 1 might have .had -the cheques there tc guide me.

Mr Jellicoe: Did you give the Official Assignee any cheque of 1897 P •' Witness; I gave him all the cheques I had. That is all I can say now. Mr Jellicoe: When was your, first transaction' with Myers? ’Witness : I cannot fix a date; Mr Jellicoe; Tell mo what money yog lent him before December'l7th. Witness : I could not say . from memory,, I only obliged him. I kept his cheques and receipts. Did not always give him cheques. Witness went on to say that she kept a memorandum of hei transactions with Myers’. The account' was kept in the nanio of Mr J. Norman. Myers told her to do that. She could not say when that book was. started; it would bo about the time alio first commenced to lend Myers money. Mr Jellicoe: Where is that book?— Witness ; At home. ! When did you see it last ?—lt’s a good while since I, saw it. "’:Did you tell the Official Assignee on your oath that you had, no record of youi transactions with Joseph Myers and-had kept n6ne?—l said I did not keep- ■ a proper -book. ' Did you say you kept no records?— Yes. . , Did you toll the Official Assignee one word about that memorandum book?— No, he did not ask mo., Why did you not tell him you had the book?—Tt was not properly kept. Mr Jellicoe: Will yon kindly send for that book? - V Mr Kenny: Wo”ll-sond one -of the officers of the Court for it. Witness: I want to go for it myself. My son knows’! where it is. Mr Kqnny :' Lob the ’ Cburb Orderly go down with her and sho -can ask faei son for‘it. h Mrs Aklons then left the Court wilt the Court Orderly (Constable Johnson) for the purpose. , - ’ ' Edmund L. Broad, ledgerkeeper at the Bank of New Zealand, said he knew Joseph Myers, and knew his handwriting. The cheque purporting to be signed by C. P. Ske|rrett was handed to witness together with the cheque signed by Myers himself, which he gave to Mrs Aldous. Witness said they came out of a cheque book issued to Joseph Myers. The one signed Joseph Myers for £3lf was in Myers’s handwriting. He could not say in whose writing the other cheque was made out.

Sergeant Wright said he knew the accused and arrested him at Mont© Video oii January 11th on this and five other charges. Witness rend the warrants to accused. As ho road each warrant ‘accused would consider and ask whose case that was. Witness woidd giro the name of the case, and Myers would say “ That’s right,” . Mr Jellicoo: Showing that he understood the charge. Witness said Myers was surrendered to him by the Uruguayan authorities under extradition. In further conversation Myers said “I did not forgo these documents : I am suffering for others.” 110 then pointed out the endorsement 'of D. J. Nathan., which appeared under Myers’s own signature on a photograph of one of the. ,document!), and he said “ That’s not much like writing, is it?” lie said ho would offer no objection to extradition, and was unite prepared tc return and face the charge. . Ho said he had stowed away on the Maori aftei u meeting of the City Council, aboui 10.30 at night, but that be afterward: paid bis faro. Tile Maori left New Zealand on 18(h November, 180 S-. To Mr Jellicoo; Witness loft Nev. Zealand on 2iu! December. At the timi I l-o .Maori left New Zealand there wore, a.- far as be knew, no charges again.Myora. J ‘ ,

Mr Jellicoe; Did any money lender, become security- for any expenses that might- be intmrrel.l? —They did give a Who were the persons who elm that: —Mr Cook, of the Pacific Loan Co., anc Mr Whitehouse, of the To Aro Loan Co He showed Myers photographs of the documents, and Myers recognised thorn, by saying “ That’s right ’’ as each was shown him. Myers facilitated the extradition proceedings as much as possible, and refused the services of a sohcitoi there, provided gratuitously. Myen. told witness once that he was ordered co do some rough work, but that he then paid £l6 for his fare. Do you romomher on your arrival lierc my tolling you that accused had wntter a statement for me, and that vein saic it was in your hag. and you would send it me?—l said I would send it if I cojild. Anything Myers wrote on board had 1c pass through my hands. Do .you know how many sheets ol paper 'that statement covered? —About f °You know that the following day the Police Department, refused to deliver that brief to rno? —Yes. It is hardly a brief. , , Notwithstanding the refusal to show it me, was it shown to a newspaper reporter ?— -Certainly not. You are responsible for withholding it? —No. Wo sent .you a copy. Mr Jellicoe; Yes, I received it on Saturday last. . . To Mr Stringer; The witness said that when Myers gave him the document tc read, witness said he should have to hand it over to the Inspector of Police at Wellington, and that it might be used against him. He told witness ho had shown it to passengers on board. The custom was not to take steps for extradition without receiving a bond for portion of the costs from persons interested. To Mr Jellicoe; Ho did nob think lie told Mvors before anything was written that he would have to take possession of anything he wrote. Tho first he heard of the statement was from one of the passengers, who said he had read it. Witness know Myers was writing something, bag; did not know ho was showing it to aSPfcno. Ho thought it likely that Myers was- complaining to the passengers of his treatment at Monte Video. Soon after leaving Monte Video Myers wanted to write, and witness told him he would have to see what was written. There was' nothing unreasonable in his writing out something for his solicitor, as he dio not know ho would be admitted to bail.

Mi's Aldous, re-called, was furthei cross-examined by Mr Jellicoo. She produced the memorandum book she had previously referred to, and it was handed ■to Mr Jellicoo, who, with accused, examined it. Mr Jellicoe:You told us the account was kept in the name of Norman?—l thought it was. Who rubbed out a. name on the top of thes'e pages and substituted! Myers?— My son. Was that done before Myers loft?— I don't remember. Did not Myers go through this account with you and your son a week before he went away?—With my son. I was pros’eht. Was the account then in the name of Norman or Myers ?—lt was in the name of Norman, and has been, I think, altered since. . Whose handwriting are these entries in?—My son, Charles. • How did ho get information for the entries ?—From Mr Myers and myself.' You seem from this account to bo a bit of a money lender?—Accommodation. Did you over accommodate him without interest?—No. I could not do it foi nothing. He fixed his own interest. Do you know how this account lias been altered ?—How ? There’st £212 there. That has been altered. I’ll show you some more. £309 —another erasure? I did not make those erasures. I don’t admit they have been altered. ■ . You see those two items of £2O each? What was there originally?—As far as I know those lare the original figures. My son Charles knows all about it. That book contains the whole account I think. I could not swear to it. According to this you began business with Mr Myers in May, 1897. Will you tell me why an item in December, 1897 is' altogether erased ? What entry wav. there originally ?—I could not say. I was ill at that time. Had you’ not access to this book from time to time ■to see what Myers owed you?—l was ill then. I was ill on 17th December, and negotiated with Mr Myers upstairs. I cannot explain the erasure. Perhaps my sort made a mistiike. As to the transaction of 17th December, 1897, the money was to be paid when Mr Skerrott’s chorine became due. Mr Kenny: Mr Arnold is pointing oui that the interest on that amount would be 80 per cent, per annum. Mjr Jellicoo : Between that and 100 pei cent. Can you be sure what yoti paid r —I cannot say whether it was £3OO 0.£302. I did not ask him to come to me. I told him I was not a money lender. Hehad complained of the interest I charged, and vye always took some off. I said 1 ran great risk and would rather . havesecurity than high interest. How much did you charge for interest between May and December of 1897? I do not know. How much did you receive from imn during that period ?—I don’t know. Did you receive £1000?—No.

Without the erasures your book shows £1342. How much of that was interest, and how much principal, I suppose you can’t say? —Not from memory. . You always lent him money on his own cheque?—Yes. His’ cheque was post-dated perhaps a- month ahead, and he put on interest himself. The cheques were not always paid on tho duo date, and M.yeiis would say he would give so much for that further accommodation. He used to fix his own price. The cheques were hold over from time to time, and for each extension interest was charged. She had to pay interest herself. She could not say from memory how much money was owing to her by accused on 17th Hece'mher. She could not tell by reference to the memorandum book. Her son might ,do so. Head the entry regarding a loan with J. Myers—£3oo , lent on December 17. Why Ivas that altered from £302 to £300?—I did not do it. Who did it?-—I don’t know. You can see the “2” distinctly. How much did you charge for holding it over from January 2 to February IP--.I don’t know. Did you charge £2o?—l don’t, know. Is it that you won’t?—No; I would toll you if T knew. I can’t remember. Ho made his own price, and I submitted. You got. £2O; tho book shows it. Tho book shows ) another £2O for holding it over from Ist February to Ist March. According to this book, you got back £SO of the loan ?—lt would be down in tho book. Sho went away on 26th February, 1898, but could not' be sure what the amount owing by Myers then was. She did not know whether it was between £7OO and £BOO. Did ho not pay you £IOO a month for the loan of £800?—Ho promised it, but I did not got it. Wore you not getting it in driblets, as ho could bring tho money into your shoo ?—Not that I remember. Did he not complain that £IOO a month was too much, and that he could not pay it?—T don’t remember, i Was not the interest reduced to £l5O before you wont away?—l don’t rein ember. What does that mean in your book—an entry showing “agreed to reduce to £OO a month?”—My son did the book-

ing; I know nothing of it. My health was bad, and I left it to my son. Witness said she agreed to what her son did. Sho did not want to lend Myers the money. Sho told him there was a risk, and he said if there was any risk he would not go to a widow woman. When she left Wellington in February, 1898, she told her son he was only to give Myers £IOO after he had paid the outstanding cheques. Until the cheques were paid she expected to got interest. She thought the loan would be paid off before she returned. Her son always acted under her direction. She returned the last week in June, and found the cheques had not been paid—that on the contrary- her son had made further advances to Myers. She could not say tho amount, but it was over £IOO.

Did hot the liability amount to over £1500?—I can’t tell you from memory. The hooks would explain. Witness s son told her he had been obliged to lend more money to save what was previously owing. It was throwing good money after bad. She herself had to pay for the money she lent. Did not your son tell yon when you returned that tho liability was then £ISOO, and that Myers had agreed to pay £IOO a month interest? —I did not take notice of the amount of tho interest. Did you not agree to it when your son-told you ho had made that arrangeAnd you consented to charge £I2OO a year for a loan of £1500?—I expected it to be paid back every month. Ho did nob -take it for a year. How much did Myers ow-o you when lie went through the book a week before ho went away?—l cannot remember tho exact amount. It is in the book. Mr Jellicoe: According to the book it is £2300. Why did you on Saturday only prove with the Official Assignee for £1500? I think I took out the interest. When I got home I found I had forgotten the £3lO cheque.. Witness said to her son when they were nuking tfp the proof of debt fi month ago that they had better reduce the interest. She could not say how much they took off. She endorsed a bill for £750 for Mr Victor Harris on the first Saturday m July; that was for Myers’s accommodation. The bill was current for four months. Sho got Myers’s cheque for £Bso—£loo for the accommodation. She had the cheque ( at home. She did- not think it was necessary to produce that -’cheque to the Official Assignee a week ago, when she swore sho was producing all of Myers’s cheques. She did not do it intentionally. She had not to pay the bill, and therefore thought she need not produce the cheque. She had been sued on that bill by Victor Harris. On 17th November she received » telegram from Mr Stringer at Christchurch stating that the bill had been dishonoured, and threatening proceedings against her and Myers unless the money was paid ’ by 10 o’clock the next morning. She sent the telegram round to Myers at the City Council Chamber. She did not know that a week previously Myers had paid £375, half the amount of the bill. jMyers promised to come in and see her next morning, bub lie did not come. (Myers had by that time gone away in the s.s. Maori.) After Myers went away she opened a letter addressed to Nonna. (It contained a cheque for £3B, and sho hanked it, thinking she was entitled to it, as ho owed her so much money, and that she would tell him of it if he cam* hack.) She had handed the money to tho Official Assignee. Tho court at this stag© adjourned for luncheon. On resuming, Mrs Aidous was. further cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe. Mr Jellicoe; You have not spoken to your son about this case? —No. Before her examination by the Official Assignee her son and herself, she said, decided they , would prove for the amount of cheques they held, leaving out the cheque for Harris’s bill. ( Mr Jellicoe: Did you swear then, T never made any entry in any hook of ray transactions with Joseph Myers* I don’t remember. You remember signing your evidence i y OS . I only made a memorandum. 1 said then I made memoranda. My son kept the hook.. Did you ever lend Myers money except by cheque?—l think we lent him some by cash sometimes. Did you tell the Official Assignee, “I never lent him any money except by cheque?”—-I said .what was there. I cannot remember’.

Wliy did you not tell the Official Assignee that you had a book in your shop which would fix ithei da,ties ?—I thought the bank book to which I referred ’ would supply the dates. She had the bankbook in her hag at the time of her examination before Mr Ashcroft She. had taken the cheques away. The' Official Assignee had given them to her. Mr Kenny: Your son will come in, and you can send him for the cheques and every document you have connected with Joseph Myers. Mr A Ideas' entered, and was, instructed by his Worship to bring the documents to the court, especially the cheque for £BSO. Witness went on to say that before the Official Assignee she swore she produced all cheques of Joseph Myers which she had. She now produced the cheques she then mentioned, and tho cheque for £BSO. She did not mention the cheque for £BSO, because she thought she was only being questioned with regard to the cheques for winch she was claiming against the estate. She had made no claim at that time against the estate. She had been sued byVictor Harris on that bill at that time. Mr Skerrott acted as her solicitor in regard to tnat bill. She saw Mr Skorrett in the shop several times during 1898, before Myers went away, but never spoke to him about the cheque of his which she held. She did not-'speak about it until the preliminary proceedings were taken. She did not remember receiving any cheques from Myers signed by Mr Mills. The cheques she received from Myers were always passed through her bank account. She took security in the shape of a life policy for £IOOO in the A.M.P. Society for the Victor Harris bill of £750, as well as the £IOO for the accommodation. The policy had now run out.

Re-examined by Mr Stringer: "She did not mention the matter of the cheque to Mr Skerrett because Myers bad rennested her not to do so. Myers said he wanted to present the cheque himself, and said that witness wasl to present "‘his (Myers’s) cheque first, and that ho would tell her when to do so. In July Myers asked her to let it stand over until 14th November, when he would have a lot of money coining in, and would be able to pay her all he owed. That was after she had endorsed Harris’s- bill. He told her ho was in a produce affair down South. They were buying potatoes, flax, etc., ho said, but they had not touched wheat. Mt Jollicoe: It would require a lot of produce to find £IOO a month interest. —I told him the interest was very heavy', and he said in reply, “It pays mo and it pays you.” In i-only to Mr Jollicoe, witness further said that a week before he went awav she asked Myers about Mr Skerrett’s cheque. He said he had seen Skerrett, and it would go-in soon. Mr Jollicoe; On 27th September. ISO”, yon lent Myers £2OO. Did you not charge Myers £o a week interest ? No; I don’t remember it. I don’t think I over did that. Do yon think you would forget charging a man 1-Mi per cent. ?—I did not charge him. Mr Myers fixed his own

charge. If it is in the book it must be true. Mr Kenny : It’s interest, is it ?—I expect it is. Mr Jellicoe; That’a very good interest? —Mr Myers came to me and asked me to do it. Did you write to Myers’s father before you informed the police?—Yes; my son wrote, I did not. I told him what to write. Try and remember what you said. — 1 explained the case. Did you not tell Myers’s father that if ho did not pay the liability, £2300, you would prosecute his son for forgery ? —I don’t remember what was in it. You won’t swear you did not say that?—No. Sergeant Wright, recalled, was questioned’by Mr Jellicoe. Did you, asked counsel, speak to Myers about a letter which appeared in the ‘'Now Zealand Times ?”—Oh, yes. 1 showed him a copy of the paper. He said he did not write it. That conversation took place at Monte Video. Charles Aldous, a son of the witness Mrs Aldous, was next called and examined by Mr Wilforcl. He had, he said, known Myers for some years. The cheque purporting to be signed by C. P. Skerrett and the cheque signed by Joseph Myers came into his possession through his being concerned with his mother in the transaction. Previous to receiving the cheque he had a conversation with Myers in the shop. He said ho wanted £3OO, and showed his own cheque and Skerrett’s cheque as security. He said Skerrett wanted this money for a little time, and wanted witness to advance him (Myers) tho money for Skerrett. He said ho got the cheque from Skerrett. Ho went to his mother, who was ill upstairs, and explained the matter to her. Myers subsequently went upstairs to Airs Aldous. AVitness saw Myers again later on upstairs, when his mother told him to write out a cheque ‘for tho amount. Ho did so, and his mother signed it, and it was taken by Myers, who gave his own cheque as a receipt, and the cheque purporting to bo signed by Air Skerrett. About June, 1898, Myers told him ho had met Skerrott while ho was away, and Skerrett had said ho would give him tho cash soon, and would want tho cheque back. To Air Jellicoe: While his mother was away last year ho operated on her banking account. He could not say from memory how much Alyers owed his mother when she left. His mother said he was not to let Alyers have more than > £IOO while she was away. Alyers might have owed £IOOO when Airs Aldous wont away. During her absence he lent Alyers about £lO9 in excess of the £IOO he was authorised to lend. Ho gave it to Myers by cheque and cash both. He could not remember how much interest Alyers had to pay when his mother went away. When his mother returned he told" her Alyers came to him to settle up some interest. He told him the amount agreed upon, but he gave him a less amount, and they called that square. Mr Jellicoe: That’s nonsense. You did not tell your mother anything of the ..kind. Now tell us what you did say. ■ Mr Kenny (to witness): Tell us the truth and the whole truth. Yon aro either very stupid or you want to conceal! the truth. AVitness went on to say that ho told his mother he advanced Alyers the extra £lO9 cut of his own and his brother's money. Air Jellicoe: AVhat did you tell your mother was the amount agreed upon, and tho amount paid by Alyers?—l cannot remember the amount I mentioned. Witness went on to say that he kept the book in which were recorded the transactions with Alyers. His mother gave him the information which enabled him to make those entries. He know of some of tho transactions from liis own knowledge. Ho remembered recently making up an account with his mother for proof against the estate of Alyers. The amount was about £ISOO.

Did your mother toll you to reduce the interest? —No.

Did the £ISOO include interest?—l think it included interest. Skerrett’s cheque for £312 and Harris’s bill, were not included. When Myers went away lie owed a good deal of interest, but witness did not include that in the proof. , Why’not?—l did not. I have no reason for it. When you made up that account of £ISOO was the account in the book in tho name of Myers or, Norman ?—lt was Myers or Norman. I'had altered it a little. before then. Who told you to alter it?—No one. You .substituted the name of Myers? —Yes. Was that the only erasure you made?' —Yes. Will you swear it?—l erased some lead pencil marks made by Myers. Did you not rub out some figures and substitute others? —No. Under date December, 1897, there has been an; item, which was inserted, erased ?—Thas was done while Myers was here. Mr Kenny: Who did it?—l did. Why ?—Because it was wrong. Mr Jellicoe: What were the figures ? —I won’t be sure. Was it done in Myers’s presence?— I won’t be sure. A figure had been put in by mistake. i Did you erase a figure before an item of £209 of March, 1898?—I think so. What did you erase?—l don’t know. When did you do it?—Before Myers vent away. I might have done it the next day. , , V Did you not do it the same day you erased the name Norman and substituted Myers ?—No. Was not that the day the book was cooked ?-—No. There is an entry of £212. There is an. erasure there?—When. I had made a mistake there I corrected it. Do you see an entry there of £3OO on December 17th, over what is plainly £302? Who altered, it?—l suppose I did. When was that altered ?—I cannot say. Before Myers went away. . It was on January: 2, 1898. Why did you alter it?—There had been a mistake, I suppose. I thought we had lent him £302, and then found we had only lent him £3OO. There was a loan of £2OO. I believe £6 a week was charged,.for that?—lt was agreed upon, but it was not paid. Your mother still claims on the cheque of £2oo?—Yes. You actually received, according to that book, £l3B interest on that loan. You have an entry in July, 1898, to charge £6O a month interest. Is that right?—l made that entry. It is a true transaction. Sixty "pounds a month interest on £ISOO at that time, was it?-—Yes, about that. It. was not so much ; it was only about £looo?—That was agreed upon. Whenever Myers came to settle up the interest' he always beat us down. The book shows that we received more money than we actually got from Myers. Take tho item £2OB 10s. Was that paid?-—We got a cheque, but I cannot say whether we passed it through the bank and got the money or not. Mr Kenny: You must bring your bank pass book in the morning. At 5.10 p.m. the court was adjourned until 9.30 this morning, accused being liberated on the same bail as before.