A FORGED ENDORSEMENT

Southland Times, Issue 14581, 23 November 1910, Page 6

A FORGED ENDORSEMENT

(■Per United Press Association). WELLINGTON. November 22. “I am of opinion that the endorsements are not those of defendant, but are forgeries by one man. On the evidence of the defendant, which 1 absolutely believe, and on my own opinion, based on the comparisons mentioned, I have no'hesitation in saying that the endorsement on the bill sued on is a forgery." In these words, Dr McArthur, S.M., disposed of an action brought in the Magistrate's Court by the Te Aro Loan, Discount and Investment Coy., Ltd., against John Fitchett, of Ohiro road, wheelwright. Plaintiffs claimed £3O as holders of a promissory note, dated 9th August, 1909, made by Thomas McCarthy (now deceased) and payable four months after date to the plaintiff company or prder, and purporting to have been endorsed by defendant. The note was dishonoured on presentment, and notice of such dishonour was given to defendant. Defendant denied liability and alleged that the endorsement on the note was not his, but was a forgery. His Worship gave ids opinion (quoted above) after comparison of enddrserhonts on the note sued on and'on two other notes .with three admitted signatures of defendant on two receipts and the notice of dishonour. Further, on comparing the endorsements with a letter purport? Ing td"have been written by T. McCarthy, in which defendant’s mime occurred twice, the Magistrate was of opinion that the person who wrote the letter also wrote the endorsements. His opinion strengthened by further comparison of defendant’s name as written in a promissory note signed by Thomas McCarthy. Defendant hail certainly received notices of the dishonour of bills made by McCarthy, such notices including the words “endorsed by J. Fitchett.” He stated that he had attached no importance to these words and had simply passed the notices on to McCarthy.- The i Magistrate did not think that such conduct on defendants part precluded him from setting up the defence .that he had set up. Defendant was many limes in the office of the company and a word between tinpanics could have put matters right at once. Judgment was for defendant Fitchett, with costs as per scale.