SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25241, 2 June 1943, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

ACQUITTANCE ROLL CASE The hearing of the case against Clement Hall Beck, a soldier, who was charged that on June 24, 1940, at Dun- ; edin, he forged a receipt for 8s for attendance at an army medical board by signing the name “ C. Betts,” and that on February 21, 1942, he forged the name of “L.'Gaw” for a receipt for 11s 3d, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Kennedy. The accused was also charged with the theft of the sums named, and on divers dates from April 26, 1940, to January 8, 1943', with' the theft of moneys totalling £5 2s 4d. There were five counts in all. The accused, who was defended by Mr O. G. Stevens, pleaded net guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) explained that only two charges of forgery had been selected by the Crown on which to take action. The case for the prosecution closed with the evidence of Lieutenant R. J. G.j Collins, a handwriting expert. The witness said that in his opinion the standard, or accepted, writing cf the accused and the writing of the Signatures on the acquittance rolls were done by the same person. The jury was handed 120 acquittance rolls, one by one. to enable it to examine the various signature's alleged to have been used ;by tlid .accused for" receipts of payment' at army medical boards. Mr Stevens said that he did not propose to call evidence for the defence. The Crown Prosecutor, in his address to the sjury, said that inquiries had been made to discover men answering to the name of “ Bett,” “ Betts,” “ Gaw,” or " Barnett,” but without success, and neither had the defence brought forward evidence to show that there ‘ were men of these names who had stoned acquittance rolls. Both Mr W. G. Hilliker and Lieutenant Collins had stated in evidence that in their belief both the standard writing of the accused and ‘that of the various signatures were by the same person. If.the testimony of Mr Hilliker and Lieutenant Collins was capable of being seriously disputed, was it not possible, asked Mr Adams, for the defence to have brought forward one expert at least- to say that the writing was not the writing of the accused? Counsel said the money involved in the 120 signatures represented £6O. The name “C. Bett ” or " C., Betts” had appeared 49 times on acauittance rolls, that of ”L. Gaw,” “ L. M. Gaw,” and “ C. Gaw ” 70 times, and the name of " C. Barnett ” once. Mr Adams’s address was interrupted at 5 o’clock, when the court adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.