WAS IT FORGERY?

NZ Truth, Issue 252, 23 April 1910, Page 5

WAS IT FORGERY?

Insurance Canvasser Charged. Proposal Put ia After Withdrawal. Did Elsie Sime Sign?

Some interesting disclosures respecting the devices to which unscrupulous insurance canvassers may — and m many cases actually do — resort, were made m the Wellington Police Court on Wednesday, when Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., conducted a preliminary examination on a charge of forgery preferred against a respectablydressed young man of fresh appearance, with a profusion of fair, curly hair, named Sidney Diamond. The defendant, a canvasser for the A.M.P. Society, was charged with having forged the name of one Elsie Elizabeth Sime to a proposal for a policy of insurance. Chief Detective Broberg conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr H. F. O'Leary appeared for the defence. Elsie Elizabeth, Sime, a demure and self-possessed young woman, employed as a domestic servant by Miss O'Neill atNgahauranga, said that defendant and another canvasser of the A.M.P. Society, named Stubbs, called upon her some time m October last, and asked her to become a member of the A.M.P. Society. He called upon her several times. Sne told defendant her age, and he told her the premium would be two shillings a week. Eventually she signed a blue document , which defendant had previously filled m himself. -She understood at the time that she was to "become a member" of the AJM.P. Society. She did not pay any money, nor did she take up a policy of insurance. Witness was here shown a blue paper, purporting to be a proposal lor a policy [of insurance, and was asked if the signa- | turc, "Elsie Elizabeth Sime," was hers, being, at the same time, told to examine the signature very closely before replying. I Witness closely scrutinised the writing ! for fully a minute, and then unhesitati ingly denied that . it was her writing. No | one else had any authority to sign her I name. She knew of no other Elsie Elizabeth Sime m the Johnson viile district. She never removed to Rongotca. j This concluded her examinafcion-in-chiei. Mr O'Leary, before proceeding to crossexamine Miss Sime, had a young man u-rlit into the- court whom Miss Sime 1 identified as "Mr Stubbs," who had accompanied defendant when he called upon her. . '. < . ..-- ' • Witness denied that Mr Stubbs had induced her to sign the document. It was, she said, defendant who had done so. Mr O'Leary : . Why did you afterwards - write to Mr Stubbs about it then? I Witness : Because I knew him, and 1 | did not know defendant's name. The letter was . th«n read. It stated that she had changed her mind about j joining the society, on. the advice of her parents. j Witness said that she put no writing loh the blue ddcumeat, other than her ' signature, which, latter she wrote m full. Mr Stubbs was present when she signed the document. It was Mr Stubbs who handed the form to her for signature. I Witness ' was . here asked to sign her ! name m full on a sheet of paper, being I given a fountain pen, as she stated that | she bad used a fountain pen on the former [ occasion. She did so, and was then asked I to compare it with the signature which she had already sworn was not her.s. She« then -stoutly affirmed tbat what she had previously sworn, was true, and that the signature purporting to be hers on the document shown her was a forgery. Even if Mr Stuftbs swore that he saw I her sign it, she would still say it was not Ihers. Witness admitted tbat a document similar to the one shown her had beea signed by her, but she was positive it v/as not the one now shown her. She knew of no reason why defendant should destroy the one she had really signed and substitute another one which she bad not signed. She was positive she bad made no mistake. She had not paid any money as a premium. \ 'James Alexander Stewart, business manager of the Industrial Department of the A.M.P. Society m New Zealand, said that defendant had been employed as an agent by the society from July, 1909, until February last at a nominal salary of a shilling a week plus a commission of 15. per cent, on certain policies effected' by him and 5 per cent, on others. . Witness was shown the document to which reference has already been made, and he said that it bore deiendant's signature both as an agent of the society and as a witness to the signature of the proposer. He said that the par-, ticclara , seemed to have been * filled m by defendant. The date of the proposal was November 15, li*Q9, and it was put m I some time, between the 15th and the ' 22nd of November, on which latter date it was accepted. The premium payable was two shillings }icr week. One week's prensksii of two shillings was paid. It purported to have been paid by Miss Sime. Agents were distinctly instructed that they themselves were not to pay the premiums. Such was part of the agreement subsisting between the society and defendant. Defendant gave witness a butt of a receipt which lie said be had handed to Miss Sime. Defendant subsequently put m a request for a transfer of the policy to Rongotea. Witness made inrfjaKruis subsequentiy and found t&iat there was iiabfe-ing to indicate that Miss Siiue had gone to Kongofcea. Commission had , been paid to defendant for securing this policy. Under eross-exarujnation fey Mr O'Leary, this witness admitted that he had sworn the information before a Justice of the Peace on which this prosecution had been instituted. He said he had mavio inquiries before he had laid the inforasfttion. He had caused Miss Sime to be interviewed by Mr Gamble, the society's district superintendent. Witness was under the impression that Miss Sime had signed a proposal, but not the one banded to him. He said he had had considerable experience m hand- writing, we was shown severe! genuine signatures ol itfiss Sirne's, and,' after comparing same with the signature on the pronosal, he was of opinion that the latter was not [genuine. He understood that Miss Sime signed a proposal m October, lUG 9, but he believed it was subsequently witUdrawn by Miss Sime. • , Continuing, witness said Uiac it **:&s not the practice for agents to pay premiums. If an agent did so, he would be immediately dismissed. Defendant's only "salary" was one shilling a week, but that was intended to be merely nominal ; he received commission as well. It was customary for the district superintendent to make inquiries into a case as far as practicable before any commission was paid. It had not been done m this case because the pressure o? work m the office had been so great that the district superintendent had no time. They had trusted to the honesty of the agent. Detective Alfred Hammond deposed to having arrested defendant on April 16. On arrival at the police station, the charge was read over to defendant, whereupon he exclaimed, "Oh ! if that's the charge, I'm safe enough." Witness said that he subsequently visited Johnsonville, where he could not find a second Elsie Elizabeth Sime. This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr O'Leary .stated that he proposed to go into the defence. John William Stubbs then went into the witness-box, and stated that he had been m the employ of the A.M.P. Society, but had left about three weeks ago. He remembered canvassing Johnscnville with defendant. On October 21, liiOS, they two had called to see Miss Sime. Witness said that he did most of the talking. The girl signed a proposal m his presence. Shown the document already referred to, he at first glibly said it was the one, but subsequently he sard he could go no further than assert that she bad signed a similar form. He had

banded tbe proposal to defendant, it being an understood thing between them that they would share and share alike between thcin, and he had secured the previous policy that day. He had not beard of the proposal again until the current week, nor had he seen defendant for six weeks previously to the date of hearing. "As a matter of fact," volunteered vhe witness, "1 have been a little bit 'distant' with him." Proposals, added witness, were sometimes held over, for example when business was pretty good, so as to be put m when business was poor. He admitted, however, that the oresent case was the only one m which he had ever heard of a proposal being put m alter it had been withdrawn by the proposer. Under cross-examination by Chief Detective Broberg, Wtness said that be- had got none of the commission on this policy. He had received the commission on. a previous policy taken out the same day by the Vicar- of JohMsonrille. Sidney Diamond, the defendant, then went into the wituess box, and stated that he was an insurance canvasser and a piano tuner. He had recently been m tbe employ of the A.M.P. Society. He had been m New Zealand from 21 to 22 months. He knew ?4r Stubbs and also Miss Sime. He had seen tbe latter hi October last. Jt was at Johnsonville. She had signed a proposal for a policy of insurance. The document which had been m the hands of previous wituesses was the one she had signed. Witness had filled m everything on the first page except the words, "Cert, of Birth," cvcrytitiisg on the second page, and everything on tbe third page except the signature, "Elsie Elizabeth Sime," which was Mi&d m by Miss Sime herself. Witness said he took the proposal and kept it m Ms possession. He next heard from Mr Stubbs that she wished to withdraw it. He did not see Miss Sime again, and.be said he subsequently put the proposal m, as he had had a bad week, and afterwards drew his commission. He swore positively that he put m the document actually signed by Miss Sime, and he stoutly denied the charge of forgery. Defendant underwent a severe cross-ex-amination at the bands of -Chief Detective Broberg, during which he admitted having taken out several policies which had been soon afterwards transferred to remote places, and he admitted having paid the premiums ou some policies himself, but he contended that the society could not be a loser. He had put ii% Miss Sime's proposal, knowing it had been withdrawn, and he paid two — possibly more-^-of the premiums on it himseSf. He indignantly denied that this was an old game of his. His Worship said that there -was a con;flict of evidence with regard to the writj ing and the signature of the proposal, but the merits of the case would have to be decided by a jury. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was therefore commuted to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being fixed at £(iO, and two sureties of £30. On another charge, that of theft of 15s from his employers (the A.M.P. Society), the accused Was, on the application of his counsel, remanded till April 7, m order that he might have an opportunity of going through hia affairs.