EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF SWINDLING.

Otago Witness, Issue 1273, 22 April 1876, Page 9

EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF SWINDLING.

The presiding Justices at the Police Court — Messrs Pyke and Paterson — on the 18th were occupied nearly the whole day hearing an extraordinary charge of forgery. The accused was Arthur Robert Moule, of gentlemanly appearance, who was charged on an amended information as follows :—": — " For that Edward Kellett, of Dunedin. on the 11th April, 1876, at Dunedin, did, with intent to defraud, forge a certain deed of property, purporting to be a conveyance from the said Edward Kellett to William Richard Windsor and Arthur Robert Moule, real estate in the Colony of Victoria ; and the said Arthur Robert Moub, on the day last aforesaid, did feloniously aid, abet, counsel, and procure the said Edward Kellett to do and commit the said felony." Mr G. E. Barton appeared for the defence, and had the witnesses ordered out of Court* The following evidence was adduced :— Detective Henderson deposed that he apprehended the prisoner on warrant on the afternoon of the 11th inst. He told him the contents of the warrant, and conveyed him to the Police Station. He searched him, and found three parchment documents on his person — deeds and conveyances, now produced in Court. Upon one, marked A, purporting to be a memorial of registration from Catherine Kellett to Messrs W. R. Winter, G. W. Taylor, and A. R, Moule of certain lands in the Colony of Victoria, he noticed a signature purporting to be that of Edward Kellett. He said it was no benefit to him he was simply taking these documents to Melbourne to oblige Mrs Kellett.—Cross-ex-amined: Witness saw accused at the Police Station sometime behore his arrest, but did not know -.vhy he went there. When in the Arcade, prisoner tnrned round to him and said : " You are following me ; I won't go away." — Mr Barton thought the Police would admit that he went to the station to give himself up.— lnspector Mallard remarked that that was not so. He did not •vant to injure his (Mr Barton's) client by stating the reason of his calling at the Station. — Mv Barton (jocularly) : Then hold your tongue, William Downie Stewart, barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, recognised the document produced. It purported to be a conveyance from one Edward Kellett, Dunedin, occupation net described, to William Robert Windsor, George William Taylor, and Arthur Robert Moule, of certain freehold land in the Colony of Victoria— one of 175 acres, and the other of 288 acres— the considerations and purchase moneys being left blank. It purported to be signed by Edward Kellett, and witness got them from accused on Tuesday last. In consequence of a conversation witness had with a Mrs Kellett at his office, he went to Duncing's Hotel for the purpose of seeing accused. He had to call a second time, accompanied by Mrs Kellett, and said, " I have come along to examine those documents which were (signed this morning." Accused replied: "Well, I don't know you in the matter." I said : "My name is Stewart, and lam a solicitor here. I am acting for Mrs Kellett, and she is anxious to see certain documents which she has signed." He stated: "Well, I don't think I will show you them." I said : "Why?" He replied : "Well, they may involve the rights of a third person." I then said: "It appears to me unreasonable that you should get these documents signed, no ore acting for Mrs Kellett, and that now you should refuse to show them. Of course if you take that stand, we must place ourselves in communication with the Police," and then proceeded to go down stairs, asking Mrs Kellett to accompany him. She wa»s detained at the top of the stairs talking to accused, and witness said, " you had better come along, Mrs Kellett." Accused then called out, "Oh, if you object to the signatures, I will strike them out." Witness turned about and went back to hira, saying, " you had better not touch them; all I want at present is an inspection of them." "No / no, no," ho said, "if you will object to the signatures, I will strike them out, and be done with the thing." He took a pen and struck out one of the signatures from the last Eage. He said "now that ia done." While c was turning over the document, witness caugUt Bight of the words "Edward Kellett," and exclaimed, "A deliberate case of forgery!" I repeated that two or three times. He dropped the deeds, and said, "It is not | Will you listen to my explanation?" I replied, '♦ Whatever you may say, I will sift the matter

agents in Melbourne— Macgregor, Ramsay, and Brahe— as lam perfectly satisfied there is something wrong." He gave a rambling explanation. After he had finished I said, "I want to see the deed, and must see the deed." He refused at first to show it. He then gave witness the deed, which he read curiously, and after doing so said to him, "This appears to me to be a gigantic swindle.'" I pointed out to him that Edward Kellet, who had signed this deed, should have been alive in 1858, and ought to be at least IS years of age, whereas the person who had sigded it was only 11. I further stated, "This is a deliberate) attempt to rob persons of land rightfully entitled to it." He answered, " Well, of course, I explained to you, Mrs Kellett, the matter, and said I did not know this Edward Kellett was the right person." Witness repeated once or twice, "This is a deliberate swindle." I asked Mrs Kellett to go out and bring her friend in, and hear the explanation. When she was out I said, "Now, Moule, this is a most diabolical swindle." He said his name was Moule ; he was not a solicitor, but was related to one acting in Melbourne. Mrs Kellett returned and stated that she could not see her friend. Moule asked, "Are you satisfied ? " I replied, in an off-hand manner, "Yes," meaning I was satisfied as to the condition of the matter. He further said, "If you are not satisfied with these documents, you had better draw out proper ones, and get Mrs Kellett to sign them, and send them over to your agents. Witness answered, " I can say nothing about that." Prisoner then remarked, " I don't think I will allow you to take that deed with you after what you have threatened." Witness replied, " Well you can keep it yourself, but it would be more satisfactory to have the deed." Witness asked him whether he was going away, and accused said he intended to have gone away that day, but he did not think he would go for a week. This was about noon, and the Melbourne steamer would leave Port Chalmers about 3 o'clock. Witness afterwards had an interview with Mrs Kellett and another person, and then communicated with the Police. According to arrangement, he again called at Dunning's about 2 o'clock to see accused, and on meeting him, said, "Mr Mcule, I wane possession of those documents." He said, " Why should I give them up ? Are you going to proceed against me ?" I said, " Candidly speaking, yes. The Police have been spoken to. After considering the matter, I can characterise it as nothing but a gigantic swindle." He observed, " I don't think you are treating me fairly. lam a stranger here, but am known to Mr Sievwright." They then walked to the Police Station, and accused said, "Do you really intend _to go on with the matter ? I can strike out the signatures, and there will be an end of it. I may have made a mistake, and ot course I am sorry for it." A general conversation then followed, and he remarked that he was a married man, and it was not a nice thing to talk about. The matter had better drop, and he would send Mrs Kellett L 25 from Melbourne. At the time they were sitting in the Police Station accped said : " I want to see Mr Pyke, the magistrate." Witness told him Mr Pyke was outside, and he might go and see him. _ Prisoner went out, and witness did not see him again until he was in the dock at the Police Station.— Cross-examined : I said to Moule, " You see the very improper position in which you have tried to get these boys, meaning the Kelletts, because years after this, when the mother is dead, there will be no one here to (jive .an explanation of the circumstances, and they may be convicted of forgery."

Sarah Kellett, sworn, said : I am the widow of the late Thomas Kellett, and I reside at Dunedin. I was married to him on the sth August, 1862, in Dunedin. He was then a widower, and I a widow. I n6ver knew my late husband, Thomas Kellett, until about a fortnight before we were married. Ho came from the Colony of Victoria to this Colony, and I also came from that Colony. My husband died on the 29th March, 1869, leaving me with four boys — Thomas, born the Ist June, 1863 ; Edward, born 1864 ; Charles, born 1866 ; and John, in 1869. I produce a certified copy of my marriage certificate, and a certified copy of the registration of the children I have named. In the earJy part of the present year I noticed an advertisement in one of the Dunfdin papers — an inquiry for John, Thomas, Edward, and Charle3 Kellett, late cf Bendigo, in the Colony of Victoria. It said they would hear of something to their advantage by applying to a Mr Windsor. In consequence of that advertisement, I wrote in reply ; and heard nothing more of the matter until I saw the accused. (The letter was put in. ) This was about seven or eight weeks ago. He came t^ my house in King street, and announced himself as a lawyer m Melbourne, and asked me if I was Mrs Kellett. I answered, "lam." He then asked me to let him see my marriage certificate, which I did. I told him I had a portrait of my late husbancl (produced), which I showed to him. lie then said I think he is too old, and stated that he would take a copy of the certificate and the portrait to Melbourne. I then asked him what it vvas about ; what property was it ? He didn't satisfy me — only said it ws s a good estate. He then went away, and said that he would have to travel the Province to find more Kellett 0 . He then left, and I saw nothing further of him until last Saturday week, the Bth of the present month. In consequence of some communication I received, I went to Mr Dunning'a, in Princes street, at six o'clock on that evening, with some friends. He said, " I have a telegram from Melbourne, and I want to go home," and if you'll bring the four boya on Monday, I'll have their portraits taken." Nothing else took place at this interview, and on the following Monday I returned with the four boys. On the Saturday previous he had asked me to bring their baptismal certificates. Ongoing with the boys, he said : " I won't mind their likenesses just now, go and get their baptismal certificates," and gave me ten shillings to get them. I wont for the certificates and took them back. He then asked me to call at seven o'clock the same evening, making no mention of the boys. I went at the time mentioned, and he said : " Dear me, why didn't you bring the boys ? It was the boys I wanted, not you" I asked what he wanted with the boys, and he said to sign some docu ments. This was the first she heard of documents, and on enquiiing what they were, he said, he wanted the boys to sign them that they might be heirs to the estate, and appointed the following morning to take the boys to sign these documents. On the succeeding Tuesday, accompanied by my sons Thomas and Henry. I went to Dunning's about nine o'clock. Accused was not up, but I waited for him. I and my boys were 'n a room, in which another person was present. Accused came into the room with some documents in his hand, and asked me which was Edward. Having been told, he said to Edward, " Come and write your name there." I saw him sign his name in three places. Edward (an intelligentJooking youth, 13 years of age) was brought into Court, and identified as the one who signed the document. Not a word passed between accused and the boy other than telling him where to sign his nsvme, After Edward had Bigned two docu^ ments, Thomas signed two similar ones, I heard accused remark to the stranger present In tb? mm, "We wJll w*» (Mb mi put

m Thomas." Nothing further was said than the accused wishing me good-bye, saying he was going to Melbourne and he would send me £10 if the boys were not the right heirs, as he did not think they were, for the trouble I had gone to. He told me to keep my own counsel, and not let any one know what had transpired between us. Before parting he gave me his address, which I now produce. — Mr Barton here requested that the letter in Answer to the advertisement in the Dunedin papers, should be inserted in evidence. — Inspector Mallard objected to that, as the letter was not written by witness, but by a friend of hers, and she had never seen Lhe letter before. The letter was written by a Mr Hardy.— After a lively colloquy between the Bench, Counsel, and Inspector Mallard, it was agreed to allow Detective Henderson to swear to the letter being found on the person of accused. —Witness continued that accused subsequently offered her £25 down if she would say nothing more of the matter. She replied, "It is i:i the hands of the Police; I cannot." He then said he could punish the boy. — Cross-examined : Witness did not think her son had knowingly committed forgery. Accused told him he required the signatures of the boys as ona of them might be the the heir of Thomas (deceased). George Musgrave, manufacturer of rubber stamps, recognised his signature on the document produced. He saw the boys Thomas and Edward Kellett attach their signatures to the documents, Witnessed the signatures at the request of accused.

llobert John Gairdner, bookseller, George street, was standing in the passage of the Police Station when accused and Mrs Kellett were together. Prisoner offered L 25 to Mrs Kellett, on the plea that this was ignorance and not wilfulness to stop proceedings. This closed the evidence for the prosecution, and

Mr Barton proceeded to address the Bench for the defence, contending that no prima facie case had been made out. He characterised the prosecution as a perfect fiasco. — Their Worships retired to hold a private consultation, and on returning Mr Pyke said they had taken the whole circumstances into consideration, and had come to the conclusion that accused must be committed for trial.— Mr Barton asked for bail. — Prisoner was allowed bail — himself in L2OO, and two sureties each of LIOO. — Mr Barton also requested that the depositions might De forwarded to the Judge as soon as possible, that he might save applica tion in regard to them.— lnspector Mallard said there was a similar charge to be preferred with regard to 7_homas.— Mr Pyke thought that both of them might have been taken together.— lnspector Mallard remarked that, be ng indictable offences, they could not both betaken together. Facts of similar forgeries might be adduced as corroborative evidence. Another information would have to be laid. It would be precisely the same as the other, excepting changing- the names. The witnesses were then bound over to appear at the Supreme Court, and the Court adjourned.