SECOND EDITION THEFT AND FORGERY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17235, 15 April 1930, Page 8

SECOND EDITION THEFT AND FORGERY

YOUTH PLEADS GUILTY COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE Pleading guilty in charges of Limit ami forgery, Cordon Williams, 22, was cominillini to the, Supreme Court tor sentence, by Messrs. I>. ('. G>ggett uud it. I>. Hutton, .I s. I*.. m tile i’oliee Coiitt to-day. I lie accused was charged with tin; theft of a diamond ring valued at £6O, the propel tv ui Mrs. Frances tJuinn, and with forging tlu> name of U. Foreman to a promissory note lor £l4. Detective McLeod prosecuted, and Mr. ,1. S-. Wauchop appeared for tiro accused. The hearing of the tirst charge was concluded, this morning. In connection with Use. second charge, Detective McLeod exp-lamed that the accused and the complainant had been icntracting at \Yhaieiaipae, haUeii-spiit-ting, and on Christmas hive Mr. Foreman was admitted to the took Hospital seriously ill. On December 51 the accused called on Mr. .lelinek, accountant to a money lender, and staled that Mr. Foreman had asked him to obtain £l2. tie was told by the money-lender that Mr. Foreman would have- to sign the note and that some reputable person would have to endorse it. Later the. accused came hack with the note tilled, in and signed "It. Foreman,” and endorsed by Mr. (’has. Ferguson. the note wa.s made out. for £L4. £l2 being actually lent, while the remaining £2 was for interest for three months, it transpired that Mr. Foreman had not signed tiie note, and the accused had misled Mi'. Ferguson into endorsing it. When charged with tho offence, the ac cased admitted it. i'lut complainant. Ronald Henry Foreman, stated that on no occasion had he given the accused authority to borrow money on his behalf. or in sign his name to a, i*. N. ; nor had he told Williams while in hospital that lie required money. To Mis .Wauchop, witness said that by the appearance, of the note the accused had made no attempt to copy his signature. Williams had endorsed his own name on tile hack. Frederick .lelinek, .accountant for Samuel Dudley, moneylender, stated tiia-t on December 31 tin? accused came to him tn negotiate a loan foe a friend who was in hospital .seriously ill. He said he required £l2. arid that he would obtain Mr. Ferguson's signature asecurity. The accused said he wanted the money lTr Mr. Foreman, and from inquiries made with Mr. Ferguson witness was satisfied about Mr. Foreman. Witness asked the accused to have the hill signed, it was made out lor £l4. £l2 and £2 interest for a period ot three, months, falling due on April 2, 1923. Tim a'’cased brought hack the lull later signed “11. Foreman” and endnisc-d ‘i bias. Ferguson,'' and witness later verified Mr. Ferguson’s signature. A few days prior to April 2 witness saw the accused, who said he had seen Mr. Foreman and made arrangements for the payment of the full amount of the hill. On April 1 the accused wrote to witness, asking to have the bill renewed for a further three months. Witness agreed to that, provided the interest- was paid, and tlm accused said it would In* paid within an Dour. Witness, however, had nor yet received payment. Charles ).. Ferguson deposed that he had known Williams for two or three years, and knowing Mr. Foreman well, he signed the F.N. at Williams’ request, the note being signed “R. Foreman.' A demand had since been made on witness for pavmenl of the £l4 due on the t’.N. Detective McLeod stated that when charged with the offence. Williams denied having forged the signature, but later' admitted having done so. Mit Mums had given no trouTHe at all. The accused pleaded' guilty to flic second charge, also, and was committed to the. Supreme Court for sentence.

Bail was allowed in the sum of sell £IOO. and two sureties of £SO each, in each ease.