FORGED CHEQUE.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12962, 29 May 1935, Page 5

FORGED CHEQUE.

CASHED AT NAPIER.

AIAN ON TRIAL. Electric Telegraph—Press Association NAPIER, May 28. The Supreme Court was occupied to-day with the hearing of charges arising out of a forged cheque for £IOOO cashed by the National Bank at Napier last February. Accused was Edward Mountford Tunnicliffe, aged 40 ? who was charged first with uttering a cheque for £IOOO by falsely representing that a cheque for that amount was good and valid. The evidence concerned the identification, of the person who presented the cheque, bank clerks • identifying accused as that person. Cross-examination was based on the actual time of presentation and payment of the cheque. Counsel for the defence, in his address to the jury, submitted that the Crown had failed to prove its case; it had failed to sheet home the crime to accused. ‘ 'Oh the opportunity that the bank officers had in the bank at the time Tunnicliffe was allegedly there it was not sufficient for them to j:>tck him out in an hotel bar s.ix weeks later,” said counsel. “The necessary care in identification had not been exercised by the Crown and an important witness could not supply sufficient proof of his ability to identify the man responsible for the cashing of the forged cheque. With a meagre description he went to Palmerston North six weeks later and said he had no difficulty in identifying Tunni cliff e.”

Counsel suggested that both men who identified accused were helped by someone at Palmerston suggesting to them that the man the police suspected was at an hotel.

His Honour said this last submission was not borne out by the evidence.

Counsel for the defence continued that it was for the jury to decide whether Tunnicliffe was at Hastings at the when the cheque was cashed at Napier. Throughout the case the bank officers bad acted upon mistaken identity, and witnesses for the defence showed that accused was at Hastings on the day in question. On all grounds it seemed to him that the jury were entitled to acquit 1 unnicliffe.

The Crown prosecutor pointed out ni his address that the Crown had tlie evidence of three officials at the bank and all of them had a good look at the man who cashed the cheque. The reason for the identification parade and the steps taken at 1 aimerston North to identify accused were merely to assist the police to track down a man who they know very well was the one for whom they were looking. It was known that Tunnicliffe and his friend Lowe had a car, and the prosecutor suggested that .it it was desired to establish an alibi they would lose no time in getting to Hastings. The prosecutor suggested that the Crown case had not been contradicted. His Honour will sum up to-mor-row morning.