SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22711, 25 October 1935, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTINGS CHARGE OF FORGERY The hearing of the charge against Douglas Frederick Stancombe was continued yesterday before his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy. The accused was charged with that on or about June 1 he forged a Post Office Savings Bank withdrawal slip for £lO and obtained from the Postmaster-general the sum of £lO. The accused was represented by Mr G. T. Baylee. Charles Frank Hughes stated that he kept his Post Office Savings Bank book in a drawer in his bedroom. Witness gave evidence that the book had been missing, and that when he reported the fact to the Post Office he learned that a withdrawal of £lO had been made from his account on June 1. The signature on the withdrawal slip, “ C. F. Hughes,” was not his. A man had boarded at his mother’s house on the night of May 31. He had only seen him for a moment, and ho would not recognise him again. To Mr Baylee: He could not say positively that the bank book was in the drawer of the duchesse on the night of June 1. His mother usually had two or three boarders. Jane Hughes, a widow, gave evidence regarding the accused calling at her house and asking for board. He said that his name was Stan Tracey. She asked for some payment in advance, that being the practice with strangers. He said that he had come from Balclutha and had Spent all his money. She told the accused that he could stay for the night. He went out late next morning, came back in the afternoon, and paid for his bed and meal before going away. v ictoria Hughes, a daughter of the previous witness, said that' she helped in the house work at home. The accused had given the name of Stan Tracey when he stayed at the house. He was given a bedroom next to her brother’s room. John Kane, a clerk in the Post Office Savings Bank, explained the method adopted when a withdrawal slip was handed in. He had checked the signature on the withdrawal slip, and had initialled the order for payment. That was on Saturday, June 1. There were approximately 300 withdrawal slips that morning, but he did not handle them all. He had been satisfied that the signature on the slip was genuine. He had compared the signature on the slip with the signature on the ledger card and had then handed back the book and the withdrawal slip for presentation to a teller for payment. He could not identify the person who had handed in the pass book and withdrawal slip. Mr Hughes a few weeks later, said witness, had come to the ledger counter and said that he had lost his pass book. Witness had obtained the ledger card and had asked Hughes to fill in an application for a lost book. In the course of filling in the application Hughes had to answer a number of questions, and he had stated that he had more money in the bank than was shown in the ledger. Witness then reported the matter to a senior officer. Upon a second examination of the two signatures witness had considered that they were not exactly the same, but he had* not really been able to distinguish between them. Many signatures differed in detail. To Mr Baylee: He had been in the office for 15 years. He had not always been on the ledger. James Russell Caradus, a clerk in the Post Office Savings Bank, said that he had paid out £lO on Hughes’s pasts book being presented to him. He could not identify the person who had handed him the bank book. Detective Russell said that the accused had been arrested at Grove Bush, Southland, on September 12. He was taken to the detective office, and there stated that the statement he had made to a detective at Auckland on August 14 was true. The statement made in Auckland related to the conversation which the accused said had taken place with Mrs Hughes. He denied that he knew anything about the theft of the bank book. There was another man, he said, sleeping in the same room, but he had got up and left before him.

Witness said that he had cheeked the statement that the accused had stayed at an hotel in South Dunedin. The accused had, however, left without paying his board. That was before the withdrawal from the Post Office Savings Bank. Witness had also checked, the statement that the accused had boarded in Maclaggan street for five days and had paid his board. That was after Alay 31. John Kearton, police constable and official photographer, gave evidence regarding photographs of the signatures concerned in the case.

Raymond J. G. Collins, company manager, Christchurch, said that he had had 17 years’ experience in the careful examination of handwriting. Witness said that on August 20 last the police had brought him certain of the signatures concerned in the case. He had spent three and a-half to four days on the preparation of the chart now before the court. He had compared the disputed signature on the slip with seven genuine signatures of C. F. Hughes, and he had come to the conclusion that it was a forgery. He had also examined the disputed signature with a sample of the accused’s writing, and he had come to the conclusion that the writing was by the same person. Witness gave lengthy explanations regarding the formation of certain letters as between Hughes’s writing and that of the accused. Mr Baylee submitted the witness to a long cross-examination on the points in the formation of the letters which had caused him to form his opinions. The witness said that he had been giving evidence on handwriting in the courts for the past three years and had appeared in about 14 cases. In other instances, after his report had been compiled, accused had pleaded guilty. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Baylee said that he did not propose to call evidence for the defence. Mr Adams in his address to the jury said that on the night the accused had arrived at Mrs Hughes s house he had said he had no money, but the next day he had been able to pay 3s for his bed and a meal. He had later had sufficient money to pay for his board in Maclaggan street for five days, whereas he had not been able to pay for his board at Kensington prior *o going to Mrs Hughes’s house. Counsel referred to the evidence of Mr Collins and said that here they had the perfectly definite opinion, first, that the signature on the withdrawal slip was not the signature of Hughes, and, secondly, that the signature and the word “ ten ” on the withdrawal slip were in the handwriting of the accused. Mr Baylee said that the jury had not had one tittle of evidence that the accused had received £lO by means of a false signature. Moreover, there was nothing to connect the accused with the handing over of the bank book and slip to the clerk at the post office or of his having received £lO from the pay out teller. The accused in his statement at Auckland had not varied his story. He submitted that the accused had given a clear account of his visit to Mrs Hughes’s house. Mr Hughes was not able to say that his bank pass book was in his bedroom on May 31. They had to

remember that the Crown had to prove that the accused had the bank book, and it had brought forward nothing to prove that he had it. Counsel referred to the fact that the book might have been taken by somebody else in the house. The possibility of taking the book indeed rested with two people. They had been told that the accused had lived in a hotel in Maclaggan street, but they had not been told whether it was the accused or the friend whom he was with that had paid for the board. Mr Collins had told them that in his opinion the handwriting was that of the accused, but the Crown had told them that the evidence of a hand-writing expert, or any other expert, was a matter of opinion only. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired at a quarter to 5. It returned at seven minutes past 5 with a verdict of not guilty on all counts. BREAKING AND ENTERING David Littlejohn Brunton was charged with on or about September 8, at Dunedin, breaking and entering the shop of Messrs A. N. Smith and Co., Ltd., and committing the crime of theft by stealing money and a number of postal notes of a value of £4O 0s lOd; with on or about the same date stealing moneys and a number of postal notes of a total value of £4O 0s 10d, the property of Messrs A. N. Smith and Co., Ltd., and with on or about the same date receiving from some person or person unknown four postal notes of a total value ot £2 5s 2d, the property of Messrs A. N Smith and Co., Ltd., before then stolen, the accused at the time well knowing them to have been dishonestly obtainedThe accused, who was defended by Mr P. S. Anderson, pleaded not guilty to the first two charges and guilty to the third. The court then adjourned till IU o’clock this morning.