THE MYERS CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3736, 10 May 1899, Page 3

THE MYERS CASE.

CHARGES OF FORGERY. SECOND DAY’S PROCEEDINGS."” THE SKERRETT-ALDOUS CASE. THE SKERRETT-ALDOUS, CASE. The Magisterial investigation into the charges preferred against Joseph Myers was continued yesterday before Mr Kenny, S.M. Mr Arnold, J.Pi, aa before, also occupied a seat on the Bench. Mr Stringer, Drown r-rosecutor at Christchurch, with him Mr Wilford, prosecuted on behalf ot the Crown, and Mr Jellicoe appeared for the accused. The charge under investigation was that of forging the name of C. P. Skerrett to a cheque tor £312. Charles Aldous was further cross - examined by Mr Jellicoe. Questioned as to the transaction of the 17th December, 18D7, when it is alleged Myers gave Mr:; Aldous Skerrett’s cheque and one of hi;; own, witness said it was in the morning that Myers came to the shop. Mr Jellicoe then questioned witness as to various entries in the book regarding Myers's transactions. On 3rd July nnu 12th July, he said, there were debts ol £IOO each, and opposite those were two payments by Myers of .£lO4 each. He thought those entries represented cheques. Those two items of £IOO each were each lent on the cheques for ,£lO4, but he could not say for how long. Did you not arrange on 12th July for a further loan to Myers of £2OO ?—Yes. In fact you consolidated the loans on 12th July?—Yes. On September 20 that loan became the " A ” loan. The book shows that interest was charged on that loan for the first three weeks from July 12th at £8 a week, and £6 a week for the next six weeks—£6o in all. Is that so?—Yes. .

Then we come to the " B " loan carrying interest at £2O a month. When was that loan negotiated ? —I can’t tell you. Mr Arnold: Aldous, do you mean to tch us that yon had the management of thin book and* yet you say you don't know anything about it?—l can’t remember that. _ Mr Kenny: You are either very stupm or you wish to conceal something. Mr .Tellicoe: The "C" loan represents .£3OO advanced on Skerrett’s cheque?— Yes. ,

On 14th January, 1808, you see a sum ol 41180 lent to Myers iu exchange for his cheque for £lB3? —Yes. s Before your mother went away was there not a re-consolidation of these loans; ana that the whole interest should be iB6O a month on £BBo?—Yes. I was left in charge of the monetary operations. And according to you the interest was paid up to the 30th of Hay?—Yes. Now look at the entry of 15th January, a loan of £450. On the other side there is " money received, =£212." I suppose you don't know what that means?—lt means he had given us a cheque for ~£212. and we had given him a cheque for 42209. There is an entry of the 4!450 loan, interest paid up to May 33th, 4250?—-Yes. So that you got first of all a cheque for 4!155, including £3 interest, and then to 30th May 4250 further interest? —Yes. And then the last entry shows you got another 42100 interest on the 41450 up to June 30th, a month?— You are wrong The entry shows it?—lt has nothing to do with the 42450. „ On March "4th you lent Myers £209? Yes. And you received from Myers his cheque for 4i212 'Yes. Myers wanted 42250 that day, and I could only give him JZ2O9- He gave me a cheque for ,£250, and said he would get the balance of 4238. As I did not give'him the balance I erased the entry of =£2so and substituted 42212. In June, when my mother returned, the A loan was owing. 42200; the " B loan, 42200; the “C ” loan, 42300; the 4!180 loan and the 42209 loan were also owing, making 421089 altogether. .. . At this time your books show the interest "was increased to 42100 a month. The 42100 entered under June 3rd, 1898, represents interest, does it not ?—I could not Si Does it mean anything else but interest f —lt’s possible it means interest. Read that for July and August r " Money received, interest paid on all up to July 31. 42100: interest to August 31. 42100; extra interest on 48100, 424. Are those entries true;? —I 1 wrote them as the cheques were received. ■■ Are those entries true?—We did not receive 42100. , , ,„ ... , Did you enter a falsehood? —We did not receive it. ... , .... I will show you there is not a shilling of the capital due before you leave the box. Write down all the moneys you have received from Myers since 2nd January, 1898, when you received Mr Skerrett s cheque ? —The witness did so, the total being 42891 16s. The amount of the A. B, C. loans and the 42180 loan is debited at 42880?—Yes. So thot the consolidated loan has been over paid by £ll 16s? We gave solid cash, and he gave worthless'cheques. Take the cheques of £204 10a, of 12th July. 1897 Show me an entry of that in the book. —It is not entered. The cheque of 19th August, 1897, for £220. Show me the entry of that.—l cannot see it. Is it entered in that book? —I cannot remember. '

Mr Kenny: I shall disallow*your expenses if you don't give your evidence bett6Mr Jellicoe: I shall ask Your Worship to do more than that.

Mr Kenny: I shall disallow your expenses. You have obstructed the Court. Mr Jellicoe: Answer the question now. If not I shall make an application for your committal?—l cannot see it there. Is it entered? —No: not in this book. Is the cheque of February 23, 1898, for .£299 entered?—No. February 23, .£l5O, is that entered?—No. Mr Arnold: Did you give Myers any re1 ’ Mr Jellicoe: The cheque for 4th March, 1898, is that entered?—No. It was entered, but I rubbed it out. ' ■ The cheque of 14th January, 1898, for JHBU, is that entered?—No. , Did you enter in this book the moneys lent ?—I cannot say I entered everything. What was the object of the book? Will vou swear any money was ever lent to Myers which was not entered in the book? —I can sweat: that all the money lent to Myers was not entered in the book. A Week before Myers went away, continued the witness," Myers, and himself and Mrs A.ldous went through the book. Myers then owed something .over .£2OOO. He saw Mr Skerrett frequently during 1898 During that year his mother received telegrams from Myers. MyerS used to say folegrams and letters addressed to Mr Norman came for another man for whom he received them. How. do you, then, account for having entered his account in the name of Norman?—He transacted his business under the name of Norman, so I thought I had better enter it under that name. Have you not threatened, since I first cross-examined you, to make it hot for Myers?—l said I would not hold anything back. Have you not said " 1 will make it ’ hot for Myers if Jellicoe asks me too much?’'—I don’t remember using those words. Will you swear you did not?—Can’t remember, I won’t swear I have not. Mr Kenny: Neither Mr Arnold nor 1 believe you. Mr Jellicoe: You answer my question. You shall answer it or you shall go to gaol.—l may have mentioned ns much as to say I would make it a little bit hot for Myers. . , „ , ,» ~ If Jellicoe Cross-examined you?—l don t think I said I would make it hot for Myers. I said as much as that. I did not tell a friend to go and speak to Myers about mv not being cross-examined. Mr Wilford: Wers you keeping anything back in your cross-examination by Mr Jellicoe yesterday? Yes, I was for the sake of Myers. What?—Something that happened at our shop and at a hank about this time last year. ■ ■ , What bank? The National Bank oi New Zealand, and in a room at the back of our shop. Myers rushed iu to me in a very excited manner, and asked me if 1 would save him. 1 said “ Yes, if it is in my power to do it, I will save you/'and asked him what it was. He told me not to think hard of him and asked me not to tell anybody else. I told him 1 would not. He said he had to find some money for a friend at a few hours’ notice; J 1387 was the amount, and he did nof know how to. get it . He knew if Mrs Aldous had been in town she would have

helped him. He was very excited and kept on asking mo to save him if I could. He then told me how lie had got £387, anc said he had to get the money so he forger my mother's name to a bill for that amount and got the money at the National Bank of New Zealand. The general manager told Myers they suspected the signature. I asked Myers how I could save him, and he said " You can save me if you will." Myers said, " Come down to the National Bank and say that is your mother's signature on the bill." Myertwent down, telling me to come into the , Bank after him, so. that it would not ap ’ pear we had been talking together. I dm go to the bank. Myers was sitting at thf 1 table in the manager's room, and the manager (Mr Gee) was there. Mr Gee asked me if my mother was in the habit of giving bills. I said; No, I did not , think so, and he then produced a bill mm showed me the signature "P- Aldous at the bottom. It was not my mother s signature. He asked me if I thought it was my-mother's signature, and I said I be lieved it was. Mr Gee said it was rather an unusual amount, but Mr Myers hac told him he had been buying goods for Mrs Aldous, and she had given him a bill for them. I told Mr Gee it was over the usual amount, but it was for goods got in at one time. Mr Gee questioned me a little more about the signature, and then told me I could go. Before going to the Bank Myers asked me to make an entry in a book which he would dictate. He put some date, which I have forgotten, ana then something about a bill to Myers and the amount. Before leaving the bank the manager asked me if I could find any entry in the book about the bill. I went backto the shop and copied the date from the entry which had been made in the book. took it back to the manager and showed .. him, and it seemed to satisfy him a bit more- Myers came to the shop the same night. He brought a paper with him anc told me to put it on the file. I have not got it now, as Myers took it away. It had some reference to the bill—something like Myers giving my mother a receipt for the bill, layers said ho did not think the manager would investigate any further, and that everything would be all right. I told him it was a very nasty business, and I did not like it at all. Myers saic he - did not wish to be seen at the shop thal night. The same night the manager o; the National Bank came down to the shop and looked at the book. I told Myers ol fi at when he came. The entries were only fresh in. the book, and I told Myers J thought he suspected something Myers asked me not to tell anyone, and I said I would not. Mr Wilford: When was the leaf torn out of the book? Myers asked for it. That might be a week or a fortnight afterwards. I gave him the book. He said sTou won't want this,' and tore it out, and to the best of my recollection he tore it up. He also* on one occasion asked for tl e receipt. I gave it him, and I think he tore it up. My mother was never callec rppon to pay the bill. , I signed a bill for Myers and he went and lifted the other bill. 1 . Mr Jellicoe: You admit being a liar, do you not? —No, I don',t. But yon told lies and acted lies to Mr Gee? —Yes, in this case. Tell me when this took place? May last I think. Was it before or after you arranged for the £IOO a month interest ? I cannot And you wish us to believe he told you he was a forger?—Yes. ‘ And that after that you signed your name on behalf of your mother for a p.n. tor £3B7?—YesJ • How much did you charge for th»„ ? About £5 or £6 altogether. I did not make any charge at the time. Myers discounted the paper. Did you not ask .him £lO and a gold ring for your girl?—No. I got a ring. 1 did not get £lO. . , • Bid you not get ,£lO 'for a boat?-—No. I was going in tor a boat, but I did not ask or get £lO for that purpose from Myers. , ' Did not Mr Gee ask you whether the bill was for goods or accommodation?— Yes. 1 represented it was for good*. Of course you told your motner when she came back?—No. I did not. When you gave her an account ol Myers's transactions you concealed it from her?—Yes. , And you had made her liable for £3Bi r Yea. And in July you let your mother endorse a bill for £750 for Myers, Victor Harris s bill?—Yes. I had hardly any, dealings with that bill. After Myers had gone away I told her about this bill. Had that anything to do with your keeping Skerrett’s cheque ?-r-No. ■ Did you not use it, as a lever to enforce payment of this usurious interest? —No. Mr Stringer; That is all the evidence m this case. ... Mr Jellicoe raid he would consent to a committal for trial, but he thought time would be ; saved if all the charges were investigated first. ' Mr Stringer thought the. case should be concluded in tlie usual way, and then he would consider what he would do in regard to the other charges. On the application of Mr Jellicoe this case was adjourned until after luncheon. THE O’CONNELL CASE. Myers was then charged with forging the name of M. C. O’Connell ,t°. a promissory note for £386 on 20th August, 18s8. Charles E. Fabian,, of the firm ot Fabian Bros., auctioneers, etc., Weliinalon, in answer to Mr Stringer, deposed that early in September last Myers came (o see mm. He asked if witness could arrange h r an advance of £2OO. Winess promised to let him know later on. He said be requ’roJ the money to make up an amount Bra Sydney firm, and showed witness what he said was a power of attorney from the Sydney firm. As security, he produced a promissory note (produced) purporting to be made by M. C. O’Connell for £3BO. vVitness knew Mr M. C. O Connell, a hotelkeeper at Masterton. Witness gav© Myers a cheque for £2OO, and Myers gave him his own cheque (produced) for the same amount. The loan was to be for a tortnight. and witness was to hold the cheque and bill as security. Witness's cheque was duly paid by the bank. On November 19th he presented Myers’s cheque, and it was dishonoured. About three weeks after the loan was made Myers saw him, and asked him to hold over the cheque for a little further time, saying he had been disappointed in not receiving moneys that he expected. Witness consented to let it stand over. Subsequently he got a letter from Myers instructing him to present the cheque on a certain date. / Cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe, witness said he did not ask Myers for security, and did not require any. Myers said, 1 have a bill here of M. C. O’Connell s, and you hold that as collateral security until my cheque *is paid.” Witness threw it back, did not want it,' and Myers could have taken it away if he had wanted to. Myers then said, r You hold that as collateral security,” and passed it back to witness. „ Mr Kenny: This bill is endorsed tabian Bros.” The persons endorsing it are liable to a penalty of £SO, as it has no stamp upon it. Tir Mr Stringer: That is another story. We had better finish the one we are engaged upon. , , , , M. C. O’Connell said he was a hotelkeeper at Masterton. The signature on the promissory note produced .was not in - his hand-writing. , To Mr Jellicoe: He had not threatened to make it hot for Myers. You swear it?—Yes. Not to auyone?—No. . . Were you in the habit of giving Myers your cheques in exchange for his post-dated cheques?—Yes. How long?—Probably about eighteen months ago: since 1 went to Masterton, at all events.

Are you a racing man? —Not particu larly. » As things go in New Zealand? —Just ab'iut. I take an interest in racing. Have you put your name on the back of cheques for large amounts? —Yes. How large?—=£s2o and .£l6O. And were these post-dated cheques of his always met at maturity ? —I don’t think any of them were ever met. 1 m speaking from memory. I held them over at his request for various periods. Have you had racing transactions with Myers ? —Yes.

Do you remember Myers being in Sydney?—Yes. That would be about February, iBBB. I did not cable to him at Sydney to buy a racehorse. I did cable to him. Myers cabled to me about a horse, Osborne, the price of which was 175 guineas. I cannot tell what my answer was to that cable. The horse came to Wellington. I received it, and it was run in my

name. I backed it sometimes. I remember Phil Myers seeing me. Do you remember ever telling him a lie? —Yes. What was it he said, and what was the lie? Did he not say, "Now, Mick, tell me the real truth? Does Joe own Osborne?’ —I said no, he does not. That was a lie?—Yes. You knew that Myers’s people were trying to find out if he was connected with this horse?—Yes.

And you lied ? —I have given you the answer. Witness went on to say he thought now that a cheque of Myers’s for £IOO was paid, but he was not sure. His wife once endorsed a cheque for Myers. At this point the Court adjourned foi luncheon. On resuming. Witness was further cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe. The endorsements on the two cheques produced were his. Those cheques, he’ supposed, passed through his bank account at Masterton, and were paia. His wife had not a separate account at the bank. The endorsements on the five cheques produced were his wife’s, to the best of his belief. The two cheques piodueed for £225 and £230 were not honoured by the bank. Mr Jellicoe: They were drawn by My°rc on the Bank of New South Wales at Wellington, they were paid into the Bank of Australasia at Masterton, and collected at Wellington, and charged to Myers s ac--count.—l don’t know anything about cheques for £225, £230 and £2BO. I never got the money. Your wife got the money.—My wife never got the money. The hank account shows slie did.—l know nothing about it. Did you also get the £4OO from Myers in November? —Yes. I know nothing about these cheques. Did you ever give any receipt for money you obtained from- Myers?—No, and I never made any entry regarding it in any book.

You say you have often put your name on the back of his paper?—Yes. Have you done the same for other people ? Not for amounts as large as Myers’s. How is it you did it in this case?— Purely as an act of friendship, because I knew'him and his people. Were not these betting transactions? —Certainly not. Not one of them. Purely but of good fellowship ?—Yes. Can you recollect all the cheques you signed for him?—l cannot. ' Can you remember all the occasions you put your name to paper for him ?—I cannot. Have you any record at all made by yourself of the occasions you put your name to paper for Myers?—No. Only your membory and the butts of your cheque books?—That’s all. Have you been in the habit of laying odds on race events ?

Mr Stringer urged that the question wae not admissible, as having no bearing on the case The Bench allowed the question, and the witness denied that he had been in the habit of laying odds on racing events. Mr Jellicoe: Or taking deposits from backers?—l have not. Have you ever had settling up nights at your hotel?—lf a bookmaker won a wager off me he would come to my hotel and be oaid, or else I would see him on the street. I don’t wager with anyone but bookmakers. I may have betted £5 or £lO with other'people. Have you any knowledge of the intricacies of poker?—Yes; very little. Get cheques for poker sometimes ?—N o. What do you take, 1.0.U.’s? —No. I have not played a game of poker for years. Did you not £n 1838 make a good deal of money" out of poker?—No. Nor out of card playing ?—No. Was Myers staying at ybur hotel when you gave him your cheques?-—Yes. You cannot give jne the particulars ot the cheques you gave him ? —iN othing but the bank book. . Show me the bank hook. Witness to the Bench: Am I obliged to show Mr Jellicoe the bank book? Mr Kenny: I don’t think it would be fair to compel him to show you the bank Mr Jellicoe: I knew he did not want me to Witness said on the. 24th February, 1838, there was an entry of £l5O in the name of Myers. In March Myers gave him another cheque for £152 in substitution, and got the original cheque back. In May the last named cheque was substituted for one of £154.' Do you say you never gave Myers a cheque unless it was payable in his name r I don’t remember. Any transactions 1 had with Mvers were in his nameDo you swear you never gave him a cheque unless Myers’s name was mentioned on it?—No, I won’t swear that. At this stage witness wrote his signature on a shefet of paper with five different pens. , , Mr Jellicoe: You swear that is your usual signature?—Yes. It’s* rather large?—Yes. , . AVhy don’t you write a decent size ? Is there anv reason ?—That’s my usual signatUYou know Myers’s handwriting ?—Yes, I have seen him write often. Do vou think Myers is ..capable ot making the signature purporting to be yours on the promissory note? Mr Stringer objected to the question, and Mr Kenny 1 also thought the witness should not be asked for his opinion. Mr Jellicoe said he was entitled to take the witness’s opinion. , . The Bench refused to allow the question to be put. Witness, in answer to another question, said he did not think Myers pould have written the counterfeit signature, because he generally wrote a very heavy hand, and his hand was generally shaky. Re-examined by Mr Wilford: His signa tures were put on cheques by witness purely out of friendship for Myers. The letter produced dated 12th November, 1898) from Myers, asked him to hold over a cheque for a few days, and spoke of him as his "best friend,” and as one who had often shown his friendship for him. That letter asked him to hold the cheque over until the Friday. -■ ' , • Mr Wilford: On the Friday he left by the Maori. . . ' , To Mr Jellicoe; Previously to that he had written to Myers to expose him to his people unless he paid what was owing, about £4OO, ami that letter now read was in answer to his threat. How long did you give him to find the money?—Until the Tuesday. Witness further stated that he was doubtful of the signature on a cheque for £3O, dated 27th October, 1898. Edmund Broad, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, Wellington, said the handwriting in the body of the promissory note was that of accused, and the indorsement of "Joseph Myers” was also in Mis handwriting. , . , Mg, Jellicoe: You know nothing about the signature to the bill?—No. This concluded the evidence for the Crown. j . Mr Jellicoe then reverted to the previous charge, that of forging the name of C. P. Skerrett to a cheque, and asked to be allowed to recall Mr Skerrett. Permission being granted, ‘ , Mr Skerrett again entered the box, anc was examined by Mr Jellicoe, He said he had known Mr John Mills for some years. He had not been his solicitor. He had had no monetary transactions with Ml Mills. , , Have you had any transactions with Mr Mills during the last two years?—Yes. I have had some dealings with him. Have you exchanged cheques with him or signed your name for his accommodation ? —No I never.

Have you had bill transactions with him?—l don’t understand the question. Has Mr Mills ever obtained your signature to his papers ? —I don’t know what the question means.

I am reading from Mr Mills’s evidence. "Have you ever obtained Mr Skerrett’s signature to your paper?—Answer: I have for my, accommodation.’’ What do you say to that?—l should say that probablj Mr Mills did not understand the question, nor do I understand it. I have never given any p.n. or any negotiable document for the accommodation of anyone. When I desire to help a man I generally give him a cheque. Has he not given you renewed bills?— I don’t know. I think it is improbable, that he has.

He says 1 don’t care what he says. It docs not trouble us what you care. We simply want the truth. Did he in 1897 obtain your signature to his paper, and did you not have to pay the liability: —No. I have said I have not endorsed a promiss; "y note for the accommodation oi any person in my life. If Mr Mills has sworn that he obtained your signature to his paper for his accommodation in 1897, that you had to pay it.

and that lie has since given you a renewed bill, and still owes you =£lo7 —is that true or talse ?—lf I do hold a renewed bill, it is not in payment of any bill or cheque paid by me in consequence of having en dorsed it as accommodation for Mr iuills. Does he still owe you =£lo7? —I don't know. It is probable that he does. Have there been any money-lending transactions between you and Air John Mills? —I don’t know what you mean bj money-lending transactions. Mr Kenny: The question means, have you ever lent Air Mills any money?—lf the question is put in that way I will answer it. Mr Jellicoe; Have you lent money to Mr Alills during 1897 and 1898?—Yes. I believe I only lent one sum of £IOO to him. I might possibly, after the repayment of that have lent him another £IOO. I lent it as to a personal friend, and he is still a personal friend of mine. Did he come to you in financial difficulties in 1897? —Yes. He came to me as tc his financial difficulties about two years ago. Was a loan of .£4OO raised with the National Bank?—A loan was raised with the National Bank. I guaranteed it with twe others. Alyers had nothing to do with it. Was not Mr Wylie's name eventually substituted for Myers's?—l don't know. I have heard nothing of it. I never had any connection whatever with Mr Alyers. I would not have taken any part in the transaction with Air Myers. Are you connected with any liability to the National Bank for Air Mills?—No.

Do you deny that Myers was one of the original guarantors for the loan of .£IOO, if Mr Alills swears he was?—l never heard it was so. Aly recollection is that he was not.

Witness, in answer to Air Stringer, made an explanation. The transactions between Air Mills and himself were of a simple character. He lent him .£IOO, for which Mills gave him a promissory note. He did not believe that bill was renewed, but if so it was not renewed until the first .£IOO was paid. About two years ago Mi Mills laid a full statement of his affairs before him, and witness was satisfied that the statement was absolutely correct. He and two others arranged a temporary accommodation with the National Bank foi Mr Mills. The name of the accused was never mentioned in that transaction. He knew that since that advance Air Alills had not been personally concerned in any betting transaction, and he had no doubt that the suggestion that Mr Mills had anything to do with that cheque was deliberately untrue. This concluded the evidence. In reply to the usual question, the accused made a statement, alleging his innocence of the. charge, and tending to incriminate another person as the forger of the cheque. Accused was then committed for trial on the charge of forging Mr Skerrett’s name to the cheque, the same bail being allowed as before. He was also committed for trial on the charge of forging the name of AI. C. O'Connell, in which he reserved his defence.

The next charge was that of forging a promissory note for .£IOO, purporting to be signed by AI. C. O'Connell, on September 16. 1808.

Wm. Henry Cook, examined by Air Stringer, said he was secretary of the South Pacific Loan and Discount Company. About September T4th Myers brought him the document produced. It purported to bo signed by M. C. O’Connell, who, he said, was a hotelkeeper at Masterton. At that time witness held a promissory note of the accused for £124. He returned Myers that promissory note and got the bill for £IOO and £29 in cash in exchange.. To Air Jellicoe: He had had rather large transactions with Myers, and with Mills in connection with Myers. There was onlyone bill he could remember discounted for Alills with Alyers’s name on it. It was in October, 1897,* and was for £lO5. Hit transactions with Air Myers-were satisfae tory so far. They had lost money over the transactions, but up to the'time he went away they were satisfactory. The bill of £lO5 was not, he thought, renewed. Mr Jellicoe: Yes, it was renewed for £BS on 15th December, 1807,-and was paid on Alarch 22, 1898?—That’s right. AI. C. O’Connell denied that the signature on the bill was his. E. Broad, ledger-keeper af the Bank of New Zealand, said the body of the document was in the A handwriting of Joseph Myers. ‘ -7,

Accused, who reserved-his defence, was committed for trial on this charge.

Accused was further charged with forg ing the name of AI. C. O’Connell to a promissory note for £469. The evidence,of L. M. Harris, taken at the time of the application for extradition, was then -put in with the consent of Mr Jellicoe. Witness, who was manager foi A. S. Paterson and Co., Wellington, said a few days later than October 18 last Myers came, and asked him to discount a bill. He said he had sold a racehorse to Mr O’Connell, of Masterton. He then produced a promissory note purporting to be drawn by M. C. O’Connell in favour of himself and endorsed by himself. He said O’Connell had given him the bill foi the price of the horse because ho was un able to find the cash. I agreed to die count the bill on his getting it satisfactorily endorsed. Witness said he would be satisfied with Mr David Nathan, and he said Jie would charge £lO for discount ing. " On the afternoon of the next day Myers came, back and presented the same bill, bearing the further endorsement of D. J. Nathan. Witness then discounted the bill, giving his personal cheque foi £449 10s and £lO in. cash. The cheque was paid. Before the Official Assignee the witness, said he took the bill to Air Nathan’s bank, the Union Bank of Australia, and showee. it to the manager, Mr Longden. He com pared it with the signature book, and sail to witness, “You need not have any fear about paying out on that. The bill had about fourteen days to run when Myers left Wellington. After he heard certain rumours he showed thelignature on the bill to Mr D. J. Nathan. Mr Nathan said that was his signature, but when he saw the contents of the bill he said he never endorsed a bill in his life. •

M. C. O’Connell denied that the signature on the bill was in his handwriting. E. Broad, ledger-keeper at (the Bank of New Zealand, deposed that the body of the document was in the handwriting of- ac cused. ..

Accused, who reserved his defence, was committed for trial on this charge. At 5.15 p.m. the Court adjourned until 10 o’clock this’ morning. , :