FORGERY CHARGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22099, 1 November 1933, Page 8

FORGERY CHARGES

RECEIPT FOR WORK DONE BOROUGH COUNCILLOR CONVICTED. ” (Pe;b United Press Association i »• WELLINGTON, October 31. A fine of £4O, in default three months’ imprisonment, was imposed by the Chief Justice to-day in the Supreme Court on Amos Howell, a borough councillor of Upper Hutt, who was found guilty of forging a receipt dated January 16, 1933, -.to the Upper Hutt Borough Council, purporting to be signed by T. Johnson, for £2 12s. The accused was allowed 14 days in which to make payment. “I feel it difficult to think that these things could have gone on without some person having a knowledge of what was happening,” said ;his Honor. “It certainly needs further investigation. I realise that as far as you personally are concerned you have already been punished for the offence you have committed.” It would mean that Howell would lose his position as a councillor and his Honor assumed that he would also be removed from the list of justices of the peace. In addition Howell would no doubt also have to face the possibilities of penalties in another court for any offences he might have committee against the Municipal Corporations Act. “I have no doubt that this prosecution will have done a considerable amount of good throughout the country. It will have the effect,” said his Honor, “of focussing attention on the provisions affecting local government. I do not think it necessary to impose more than a fine to cover the expense to the State of the trial of both yourself and your son.”

Acting in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Crimes Act the Chief Justice discharged Amos Rae Howell, garage assistant, of Upper Hutt, who was faced with three charges of forging receipts to the Upper Hutt Borough Council purporting to be signed by others.' The case followed along the lines of the previous case against Amos Howell, father of the accused, although the two were tried separately. His Honor said that when the first two offences had been committed Howell had been only 20 years of age. It was quite plain that the youth had been working for his father, and in all that he had done with the vouchers he had acted on his father’s instructions. If the accused had been convicted his Honor would not have imposed more than a nominal punishment if any punishment at all. He did not wish to ask the jury for a verdict which would mean a black mark against the accused for life. His Honor said he knew the jury would accordingly agree with him in making an order for the discharge of the accused without 'asking members for a verdict. “ This has the effect of an acquittal, although it is not actually an acquittal,” said his Honor.