THE CASE OF JOSEPH MYERS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXX, Issue 3783, 4 July 1899, Page 7

THE CASE OF JOSEPH MYERS.

THIAL OF THE -ACCUSED. FOUND GUILTY. In -the Supreme Court yesterday rnorn--1 inn before Mr Justice Deuniston, the trial of Joseph Myers on several charges of forgery and uttering was commenced. Mr T. W. Stringer, of Christchurch, with him Mr T. M. Wilford, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr A. C. Hanlon. of Dunedin, represented tho accused. • > , , . , At the outset Mr Hanlon objected to the counts charging the accused with uttering, as lie had been extradited from Mr-nto Video for forgery, under a treaty with that State, according to which he contended Myers could not bo tried for an offence for which lie was not extradited. His Honor asked if this was the proper time to object. .. , Mr Hanlon replied that he wanted His Honor’s ruling. Exception could be taken, he submitted, at a later stage. His Honor said the matter should he put before him in some definite way. Ho thought the application could have been made at an earlier stage. There was nothing before him but the indictment for forgery and uttering. Mr Stringer said the Extradition Act provided that an accused person could only be charged for an. offence for which ho was arrested. Mr Hanlon said the treaty did not say so. His Honor said a breach of the treaty was a matter for tiio contracting parties to decide.

After some further discussion the subject dropped, 'it being understood that Mr Hanlon, would refer to the matter at a later stage. Myers was then charged with having on or about 20th August, 1898, forged tho name of M. Ci O’Connell to a promissory note for £3Bl, and also on the 10th September to -another promissory note for £IOO, and uttering tho latter to tli© South Pacific Loan Company.

The accused pleaded not guilty to each charge. The following jury was •emmi-o’w-—Benjamin Wallace (foreman), John Holden, William Buck, Robert Scott, diaries Stuart, Charles Frederick Priest, John Galley, Robert Read, Edwin Robert Reeve, John Forrester, James Halcron and Charles John Alexander. William Henry Cook, secretary of the South Pacific Loan Company, deposed that tho accused brought the promissory note (produced) for £IOO to him for tho piurposo of renewing a bill for £124 which ho (accused) had to meet by tho 22nd September. Myers also gave witness £29 in cash, making up £124 for the bill, together with £5 interest due. Charles Edmund Fabian, auctioneer, stated that on . August- 20th, 1898, he lent tho accused £2OO upon the security of a promissory note for £386 purported to be signed M. C. O’Connell, and "one of Myers’s own cheques for £2OO. Tho cheque was dishonoured. Thomas Whitehoiiso, secretary of the Te Aro Loan Company, deposed that in July last he discounted a bill bearing the name of M. C. O’Connell for £206 10s for the accused. He also gave evidence as to other promissory note transactions with Myers. By Mr Hanlon: About £3OO in interest had been received 'from' the accused in about three year®. TK" to

he'had borrowed was £3872, and the largest sum at one time was £461 George Poynton, settler, living in Daniel street, deposed that on the 23rd .September ho lent the accused £2OO, receiving in return • the accused’s own cheque for £204, the extra £4 being for interest at tho balk rate of discount. The accused represented that he had some goods coming from Sydney. Witness overdrew his account to oblige Myers. Subsequently Myers gave him a bill bearing the name of “P. Aldous.” for £347 as additional security. Myers indicated that the signature was that of “Mrs Aldous,” tobacconist. Witness said it was a large amount for Mrs Aldons to owe him, and Myers replied, “That is nothing. That is a very small amount. Wo do a lot of business.” Myers’s cheque was dishonoured. By Mr Hanlon: Witness held shares in the Te Aro and Wellington Loan Companies. Ho had previously lent Myers £SO. Had seen the accused since his return, and witness told him that, he Myers) had sbrved him a nasty trick. Myers replied, “1 cannot talk about that; you know what is pending.” Mr Hanlon : Did you toll him that if he settled with you, you would nob produce your documents to the police? Witness: Nothing of the kind. Myers told him that he (witness) had not been frank with the rest of the creditors. Witness did not know what ho moan, by that. J. A. Hall was called but did not appear. M. C. O’Connell, hotelkeeper,. Masterton, deposed that the signatures on the bills (the subject of the charge) were not his. Witness had irequently endorsed cheques for Myers to oblige him. Two cheques for £560 and £l6O had been dishonoured. Myers- had' written to him asking him not to present the cheques for a few days. At a later date he had received the following telegram from Myers: —“Prepare for it tomorrow. Regards.” Mr Stringer; When tho morrow came Mr Myers was not here. Bv Mr Hanlon: Had told accused’s brother, Phil Myers, that he (accused) did not own the racehorse Osborne, as he had wished to protect Myers. Hint statement was not true. Had probably endorsed a dozen cheques for Myers. Shortly before tho accused left New Zealand witness received £4OO from him, but he could not remember receiving any amounts before that. Mr Hanlon: Is it true that you said you wished to God Myers had not been brought back? Witness: I have said I wished he had not been brought back. I said that for tho family’s sake. He was certain he had never signed a promissory note or bill for Myers. • Priscilla Aldous, tobacconist, slated that the signatures to the bills produced were not Tiers, She had never purchased any largo quantity of goods from My ere. The largest amount was about £l2 worth. Witness lent the accused £3OO on one occasion. By Mr Hanlon: Witness had had a good few transactions with the accused, extending over perhaps eighteen ■months. Myers put on his own interest, sometimes £3, or £2. She had no idea of the amounts Myers had paid her in interest. Her son had kept a memorandum. Mr Hanlon: Do you not know that vour proof of debt was reduced from £2003 to £ISOO. _ ' , Witness: Ido not know. Mr Hanlon: Was it not that you wore ashamed at the interest that had accrued ? Witness: No; ho used to ask me to oblige him, and he put on his own interest. His Honor: Suppose she charged 100 per cent., how does that affect this case? Mr Hanlon: It might go to affect her credibility. Mr Hanlon (to witness): Is it not a fact that you charged £IOO. a month on a loan of £800? Witness; No. . .

Mr Hanlon : Did you not get it once or twice ? Witness : II I did he get it back

again. Mr Stringer; 'Tea have lost £ISOO incapital. Witness; Quite that. J. A. Hail deposed that he had lent Myers £6O on a bill for £126 purporting to bo signed by Mrs Aidous. Myers since his return, had told witness that he could assure him that the bill he (witness) held was a. perfectly genuine one, and worth its face valueE. L. Bread, ledger-keeper ;it the Bank of Now Zealand, and E. Wastney, accountant at tho National Bank of New Zealand, gave evidence that the signatures on tiio documents produced were not the genuine signatures of " M. C. O’Connell ” and “P. Aidous. ’ Sergeant Wright, who arrested Myers at Monte Video, also gave evidence. To Mr Hanlon : Tho accused when arrested denied that ho hud forged the documents, and said lie was " suffering for others.” His Honor interrupted Mr Hanlon and declined to allow him to question the witness further as to the conversation which took place between him apd tiio accused. How could it bo evidence ? This closed the case for tho prosecution.

Mr Hanlon said he did not propose to call evidence. He again referred to tho point lie had raised at the opening of tiio trial as to tiio " uttering.” Myers, ho said, was arrested a-ud indicted for forgery, and ho could bo charged with forgery only, notwithstanding what the Extradition Act said. Tho Court was bound by tlie treaty between Uruguay and England, and under that treaty Myers had been arrested for forgery, and therefore could not now bn tried for uttering. Mr Stringer contended that forgery in Iho present ease included uttering. His' Honor held that there was nothing in the point raised by Mr Hanlon, and ho overruled it After consultation with the accuser!, Mr Hanlon said ho did not propose to call evidence at this stage, but the accused wished to nia,ko a statement. Hie. Honor .-Where docs ho get tiio authority to make a. statement? Mr .Hanlon : I submit that the ac-. cused is entitled to make a statement before his counsel sums up to the jury. Ho contended that tho accused had the right under common law. His Honor said common law had nothing to do with 'rf. Mr Hanlon said it was to some extent a guide to our procedure. Mr Stringer said it appeared to him that tho accused had nti right to make any statement. Apparently he wished to do so for palpable reasons. , His Honor having overruled Mr Hanlon’s claim, Mr Hanlon held another brief consultation, with the accused, and then announced that ho. proposed to put tiio prisoner, in the box. Mr Harden then asked leave for the prisoner to retire for a few minutes. This was granted, and on the accused’s returning to Court, Mr Hanlon again conferred with him, announcing, after a few minutes’ conversation with tho accused, that ho did not now propose to call Myers. Mr Stringer’s, address to the jury lasted three minutes. , He described the alleged forgeries as “gross, palpable and clumsy.” While .giving tho opposing counsel credit for every possible ingenuity he could not for tile life of him see what possible defence he could make. There- was the plain uncontradicted facts, and their duty must be simple. , ; ;

Mr Hanlon contended that the case was anything .but a simple one ; it was ono of the very greatest difficulty. The Crown had been unable to show that Myers forged tho documents, or uttered them knowing them to be forged. Could they lay their huger ou au atom of evidence that showed that Myers forged the documents ? Referring to the fact that Mr Fabian had not asked for any security, and that Myers had voluntarily given him the promissory note, Mr Hanlon asked if any man could bo such an arrant idiot as to take a document which he had forged himself, or knew to be forgedi, and “give it as security for a. loan when there was no necessity. Whom Mr Fabian said he did not want the security there was the golden opportunity for tho accused, if lie knew tho document was a, forgery, to put it hack into his pocket, or tear it up, and say to himself, “There will be no evidence against mo if I do this.” But the accused said “No.” and presented the document. Could they credit' that a sane man would do such a thing? They were not justified in believing that because Myers had told stories about the purchase of goods that he was a forger. As to the accused leaving tho country, Mr Stringer had said ho had “fled tho country.” Well, what about that? It. did not follow that he was a criminal. Myers knew the bills were coming duo, and as be could not pay them, ho fled tho country. But when ho was charged with forgery, what did he do? Immediately replied, “The sooner I get, back to face these charges the better.” -His defence was that he knew he was “suffering for others.” They must confine themselves to tho indictment before them, and take no heed of the numerous other matters introduced into the case. Was there, he asked, any necessity for Myers to forge Mr O'Connell’s name? Absolutely nope. Concluding. he asked them to do only what tho Crown had asked them to do—weigh tho whole evidence; not a particle, but the whole of it, and if there was net a preponderance in favour of the Crown, then they rpust acquit the prisoner. As to the other documents, they must he dealt with by another tribunal.

His Plonor, summing up, said the case in its main features was a very simple one. There was really no dispute as to the facts, and the question was what conclusion the jury could, as men of the world, and men of honesty, come to. There was not a shadow of evidence to counteract the charge that the documents had 1 been forged. Was it likely that O’Connell would sign promissory notes for £ll6l without knowing ho had done so? Mr O’Connell denied liming signed any bill for Myers, and that evidence was absolutely tin contradicted. If ho had signed them, and given them to another person, why was there no evidence to that effect? If O'Connell’s evidence was true, then the documents were forged. It had been said that the Crown had not proved that the documents were forged; but, he pointed out. a man did not forgo the name of another man in the presence of other people; forgeries were not committed in the light of day. The only ground on which men were convicted of forgery was that they were found in possession of the forged document, and could not give anv satisfactory account for the possession of the forged document. That was the case for the prosecution. No attempt had been made to show how and why the accused had become possessed of these docunicnts, except a phrase he had dropped when arrested. He had said he was suffering for others Who were the others? Was it sufficient for a man to commit a forgery and then advance as his only excuse, “ I .am suffering for others” ? Dealing with another point raised by the defence. His Honor said that if Myers had reason to belie 1 a that the cheque presented to Mr Fabian could not be met it was important that he

should give .some collateral security. The jury retired at 4.30 p.m., and returned at 7.55 p.m. with a verdict of guilty. Mr Stringer informed His Honor that he would decide next morning whether ho would proceed wHr the other cases. The Court then ijourned until 10 o’clock next morning.