SIXTH DAY-WEDNESDAY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1046, 10 March 1880, Page 2

SIXTH DAY-WEDNESDAY

W, H. Tucker recalled : The deed A now shown me I believe to be the original deed of the copy I saw in my original examination. Looking at the Trust Commissioner's certificate the whole of it in in my handwriting, except "seventh," "Novr." "6" in figures, and "W. X? Nesbilf" I have seen Dr. Neslifct sign his name many | times. Looking at this signature, from knowledge of hie writing- -spick in my opinion, I unhesitatingly say it is not Dr. Nesbitt's signature. ■■ Jt : bears a general resemblance, and is such a copy that a schoolboy might have made. I expected to have seen a very much > etbter imitation. The "seventh" and ~ I " Novr. " are not in the hand- [ writing of Dr. Nesbitt. It was not Dr. j Neabitt's custom to write the- date in letters, he did so in figures. He usually tilled in the date himself and in figures, that is if the certificate was taken tQ him with the date in blank. I know the I deed marked B. I see what seems to bo lan erasure. I see " Oct.,' 187,2," with the 2 crossed and 1 put over it. ' I do not know the handwriting. I; Slated before that there was ana deed with " certificate refused "on it. Tljisjb the indeed to which Mr. Turton refuafcw his ' Certificate. Mr. Tnrton first sat here as Trust Coniissioner in' Oct., 1871, and not later than May, 1872. As facias I can remember the deed marked A'fs the one that hid "certificate refused" written upon it in pencil. And. is the deed Mr. Ward and I had- Hinder consideration when 1 was speaking to him in his office It is the deed that Mr. Ward road the names of ; persons from that he wished me to to come down to the Coast and %$ the certificate for. - -■•v By Mr. BraSa'ey : With reference to the pencil memoranda, I- thinld I saw it first in Mr. Ward's office. I am under the impression that, the.- pencil writing whs on the deed "when" lahadI a had it under my charge. .*.•'■ By the Court : I said ia my, esamina-tkm-iu-cbief that I never h'a'cT-tife deed Am my lrfihd in Mr. Ward's' office. I say that deed B having had certificate refused those words would be written on it in ink' by Mr. Turton. ' I said Mr. Ward rubbed the worda of the deed w^th an eraser. Looking at the deed A I see ho marks of pencil 'writing which "have been erased. Looking . bvith a magnifying glnsslcan sedltwd or three indistinct marks, whete I tlaii^ht the words were written, but I cannpi say whether where I atn looking- 'are* pencil marks or not. The other pencil marks on the deed have no reference . to the words mentioned, I had the deeds in my hand to examine the signature. I want to make a statemeut : There ia no first stroke to IMfK," unless thattbg a ttij last stroke of the W. The W,., T and K being conjoined. I never , saw Dr. Nesbitt so sign his name. The general character of the writing 1 is'lßumi' rounder than that of Dr. Nesbitfc's.t j:Hia writing was angular at the corners. -On the lower stroke of the K where^ it i&_coramencing to go up to : from-fchV "& the pen seems to have run away. It is not continuous and not flooring', as the Doctor's signature always .was., : M\ the strokes are continuously, thicker than I have ever aeon Dr. NeabittV signature. About the middle of the first stroke of the K there appears! to be different writings, resembling what schppl boy's call painting. So also at the top part of the K. The Nis particularly rounding. The c has a large top to it, which I think will be found to be the reverse of characteristic of Dr. Nesbitt's signature. The s is much more rounded and the bottom part is well formed, having been joined and brought back to the c, the last portion of the b before it . join* the i seems wanting in the angle before it is usually given in the signature, the b being carried by an upward curve into the i. Looking carefully with the magnifying glass, I can find no trace of the down stroke of the X, the tirst half of the initial letter K being totally left out. In my possession I have' a great mimber of Dr. Nesbitt 's signatures and in those the W and K are distinct letters. Looking at exhibit (3, and casually at the first few pages, I find that the W and the K of Dr. Nesbitt's signature are very distinctly and separately formed, the pen apparently in many cases has been taken off the paper before the K was formed. In every case in this book or other signatures I know ol ft as a totally distinct and separate letter. So much so that I think in the majority- of cases there are stops put between the W and K. I say the book bears out my evidence as to the nature of thee; s, and b, which is never rounded • off' into the i. All these signatures from a very strong contrast in the absence of the points mentioned. -„•»■ By Mr. Brnssey : I know-tM the deed :— Ka Kahutia to Barker and McDonald. I think I was present when Dr. Nesbitt granted his jertificate for that. Looking at the deed and the signature I wish to remark that the W and K are not distinct. If the whole of the K i 3 here, than three parts of the W are gone. I see -another signature of Dr\ Nesbitt's in another place on the deed. That is his Ordinary signature. Looking at signature on exhibit J, it is a very bad signature, but I have no doubt that it is Dr. Nesbitt's signature. I have never seen his signature so thickly or so badly wHfetelfc The W and the K are each fully formed, and the angularity of the letters as well as the angle from the b to the i are present. There is as usual no loop ia the* and in many other respects is different to the signature on the Rawiri Urekore deed. My statement still is _■ ijiat I unhesitatingly state that it is a Jorge ry. G. L. Greenwood sworn : I have seei Dr. Nesbitt's signature t&Qupjtffcls'M^L times. Looking at the signature o'Jß^g which purports to be his signature, I do not think it is, but would explain that this may possibly be caused by its being written on parchment instead M on paper. The thing that strikes me most is the unusual character of the W. K. they are conjoined which is unusual. Looking with the magnifying glass, and remarking that in three or four years a person's signature may assume a different character, my impression is that all the signatures have ' : a" instinct down stroke in the K. I think I have seen many signatures alike in the respect of the b, i, in the deed. E. T. Woon sworn : I have seen the

late Dr. Ne3bitt sign hid imna very many times. Looking at the sij^iiiuro on deed A, in my opinion tiuit is not Dr. Nesbitt's handwriting. By Mr. Brassey : I will not swear positively that it is not in Dr. Nesbitt's handwrittins*. I cannot do s<>. F. G. Skipworth recalled : I hud the opportunity of knowing Dr. Nesbitt s signature I think since 1870. I was clerk to him up to 1875. I then went into Capt. Read's employment. I have said that I first noticed the signature to deed A when the titles of the property were being made out in Mr. Ward's office. Looking at the deed A now produced, and at the signature purporting to be Dr. Nesbitt's, and with my knowledge of that signature, I say that when I first saw that signature I was deeply impressed that it was not Dr. Nesbitt's ; but that on my comparing it with other signatures I saw a similarity. Erom my knowledge of the circumstances, and of ■ Dr. Nesbitt's signature, Ido not believe this to be his signature. By Mr. Brassey : I have no possibility of forming an idea when that signature was put upon the deed. For anything I know to the contrary, I do not think that that signature could have been put there without my knowledge. It was possible that the signature might have been put on the deed when in Capt. Bead's office, but very improbable. It is improbable because of my having no knowledge of its having been done from the time that that deed was handed to me by Capt. Tucker. I have been awiiy up the coast for a week or a fortnight at a time. I have also been absent in the country on Captain Read's business. Mr. Lawrence or Captain j Bead or any one who had charge of the ' keys would have the control of them . then. I never kept the keys of the safe | where the deeds were except casually for a day or two. i Re-examined by Mr. Rees : To the j best of my knowledge and belief the i deed was in the same state when it was ! handed to me by Oiipbiin Tucker as j when I gave it over to Mr. Ward. I have ascertained since the course of the trial that the deed came to me uucertificated. , This closed the case. The Court in proceeding to give its decision said that it desired to read for the information of the public the opinion of a celebrated eminent lawyer (Judge Best) who laid down that a Magistrate I is clearly bound to exercise some discretion, not to commit any one unless a prvma facie case is made out against except by witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit. The accused had j been brought before the Court on a Charge for that he did on the 23rd ! January, 1879, feloniously forge the J aignature of the Trust Commissioner, | and that taking into consideration the j whole of the evidence, the Court is of j opinion that it is not sufficient to put the accused upon his trial, and that the ' charge would therefore be dismissed. j