FORGERY AND UTTERING.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 100, 23 December 1912, Page 6

FORGERY AND UTTERING.

THE WILLSON CASE

A PLEA OF GUILTY

Percy William Copeman Willson was charged at the .Magistrate’s Court tins morning, before .Messrs. C. D. Sole, and .J. .Masters, J.P.’s, that he ciid, on or aoout the /th day of June, PJP2, at Stratford, forge a certain document, to wit, a voucner, of having received money to wit, a voucher, in favour of J. Mclntosh lor 15s, by altering it from 1 day to 2i days and from ids to £ls Jos, and did utter the same to the Paymaster-General with intent that it be acted upon as genuine. ' Mr. llohert Spence, with him Mr. Macalister, appeared for the accused, and Detective-Sergeant Bcddam conducted the case ior the prosecution. Detective Dodd am briefly outlined the case for the prosecution and call-

ed the following witnesses: — Charles John McKenzie, resident engineer in charge of the Pub.ic Works Cilice, Stratford, also engineer in charge of the Taranaki district which includes the Stratford Main Trunk line, now in course of construction, deposed that he had been in charge of the Stratford office for three and a-half years. Ho knew the accused, who was chief clerk in the Stratford office,

having held that position since July, 1911. In addition to his position as chief clerk, accused was also impresteo and paymaster, and in the latter cap acity paid the men himself, though sometimes ho was assisted by another man. As imprestee, his duties were to receive money from the PaymasterGeneral to pay moneys against the Department. After paying accounts, it was accused’s duty to render receipt of accounts to th© PaymasterGeneral. He knew Mu' Peter Keller, who was the assistant-engineer in charge of all the works at the Stratford end of the Stratford-Ongarue railway. On receipt of certificates and time-sheets from the assistantengineer, it was the duty of the accused to make out vouchers according to these documents. Ho did then draw money from his imprest account to cover those vouchers. He would then take the money and the vouchers out to the works and pay the men. After the vouchers were receipted they were brought back to Stratford by the accused who would then make lip his accounts to the Pay-master-General. Before final dispatchmen t of vouchers, accused’s duty was to place all vouchers before him (witness) for his certificate. After claiming credit for all vouchers, it was the duty of accused to forward his accounts to the Treasury. During the accused’s term of office in Stratford, he had the assistance of three clerks, but accused had the sole handling of the money, and had the use of a,safe in the Stratford office. No one else, so far as he knew, had the keys of this safe. Sub voucher, No. 446 (produced) purported to be a payment to J. Milntosh, of Ohakune Hast, of £ls 15s 1 . The nature of work was stated as the hire of one horse and dray for twenty-one days at 15s per diem. It bore Mclntosh’s receipt, dated 7-6-12, for that amount. The voucher now produced was handed to him (witness) for his certificate on or about the 19th of July last, and witness identified the signature as his own. He remembered the Ibth oi November last, on which day he called the accused into his office. “I showed him the letter-press copy of the vouchor produced,” witness continued, “and, said to him, ‘Did you do- this ?' After looking at it for a few minutes, he said, ‘1 admit it; I did it in a weak moment.’ I said, ‘You are very foolish,’ and asked him why he did it. He replied that he was short on his cash, and thought lie would make it up that way. I then suspended him from duty.” i Mr McKenzie continued that ho was well acquainted with the handwriting of the accused, and the writing at the foot of the voucher produced was the handwriting of the accused.

Mr. Macalister: Who had control of moneys when accused was absent from Stratford ? Witness: I did. But he was only absent for a few days during this period. To Detective Boddam; When the accused was away, no one else except myself took up his duties. __ John Mclntosh, residing at Ohakune East, stated in evidence that he knew Mr May, assistant-engineer. On or about May 25 last he did a day’s work with a horse and dray for the Public Works Department, for which he was paid 15s several days after. The signature on the voucher was his own. He knew the works known as the Ohakune-Raetihi railway, and ever since the works started he had never received a payment of £ls 15s from tiie Public Works Department. Leslie May, assistant-engineer in the P.W.D., resident at Ohakune, deposed that the voucher produced was made out by him on June 6th, 1912. At the time he made out the voucher it was in favour of J. Mclntosh for hire of horse, dray, and driver for one day, at 15s per diem. He knew J. Mclntosh, the previous witness, nad on 7th June last he paid him 15s and obtained bis receipt, as per receipt on the voucher. After obtaining receipt, he forwarded it to the Stratford office, together with a statement showing the payment made for the period referred to, and cash in hand (statement produced and marked “B”). The voucher was paid by money advanced to him from the accused out of his Imprest account. The payment of 15s to J. Mclntosh was the amount for which he received credit. During the month of June last, or at any other time, he had never pa : d the man in question the sum of £ls 15s. William Wilson, clerk in charge of the Imprest branch of the Treasury, Wellington, produced, the imprest statement of the Treasury from the accused, for period ending 22nd Juno, 1912, in which the sum of £IOO Us 3d

was claimed credit for. He also produced covering vouchor giving details of the £IOO ll,s 3d referred to. On this covering voucher a payment to J. Mclntosh of £ls Jos was shown. That voucher was received in the Treasury on the 25th July, 1912, and the accused was duly credited with having expended that amount. Sergeant McNecly gave evidence as to the arrest of accused on November -oth last, on warrant, and cn the pre-

sent charge. Ho read the charge as contained in the warrant to the accused. who replied, “Yes, that’s the very thing. 1 did it in a weak moment. lam not the only ore doing this sort of thing. There ai'O lots of others.”

This closed the case for the prosecution. so far as this charge was concerned. Accused had nothing to say, and pleaded guilty. He was then committed to the Supreme Court, Welling ton, for sentence. NON-EXISTENT PEI?SONS. The second charge was that “on or a bout the 25th September, 1912, at Stratford, being then imprestee within the meaning of the Public Revenues Act, 1901. did forgo a certain document therein described as snh-vouch-er for co-operative payments Xo. 1076, purporting to he an authority for the payment of £65 Is Id. nf the Iron'es of the Government to one W. Herbert, and the acquittance by the said W. Herbert for the said sum of £65 Is Id,

which said document was i: the said Percy Willson to b voucher of the said W r . Ho ing received the said sum oi Horn the Paymaster-Genera the said Percy William Cop« son afterwards, to wit, on tl of October, 1912, at Strati said, then well knowing the meat to be forged, did use as a voucher aforesaid as if i nine.”

Deiective-Sergean t Bodd;; would be shown that no sue! W. Herbert existed, and no as mentioned in the vouch©; done. He cited authorities

cnat signing the name of a ent person is forgery, Peter Keller, assistant stationed at Whangamomona that ho was in charge since 1911, of the works on the we of the line known as the Sti Koura railway. The line re was completed as far as Poho

was in course of construct!

present time as far as the Ta die. It was being construct operative work and day la spactively, and under his pen ervision, and also that of

seer. Re co-operative works, composing the co-operative shared their earnings amo selves equally. They elect a among themselves, and autho designated as the head man for and receive their money customary also to get the sig a second man of the party too payment. He knew the who was until recently impre the payments were made foi by the accused. The payme made on vouchers to coworkers, and on wages sheef workers. The vouchers were :n the resident engineer’s terms of certificate of woj Tnese a cre made up by Inins his assistant, Mr. Lowe. The <

tive parties were designated hors, and show on the sub-von

exact locality where the pai been working during the which payment has been ma was the duty of the accused i

vise and make up the pay sh vouchers from the data sup him. When the vouchers an sheets were completed the, would draw a cheque on his account for the amount roq cover the total, and then pay a to the respective amounts vouchers and wages sheets. T 1 eel obtained the receipts of 1 immediately prior to handing over. Payment for co-operati was made out on the sub-vou order to differentiate the wag for day work. The voucher j:

purported to be a payment ma< Herbert, party No." 144, wor the Stratford-Main Trunk rail ing formation work on the TaJ

tion, the locality being 44-i chains. The total amount al have been paid to W. Berber count of the party was £65 Is was in charge of the works du period in which the work was to hhve been done. No such w ever done by W. Herbert, and party was ever in existence.

t.ncate. was ever supplied by h such work was ever done, j person as W. Herbert, so fa knew, was even on the works, cality of the work done, as ma the voucher, was alleged to be - 50 chains. On the centre line cation would be inside the Tah nel. The item “borrowing for as shown on voucher produced, taking material outside the are formation, which was an impo Horn a tunnel. The Tahora tui ferred to was solid papa, and locality there was no wet i •“pug,” as specified in the voucl duced. To put matters briefly, work as described was ever < that locality.

Charles J. McKenzie, in the of lus evidence, said the vouch duced was handed to him for hi licate on or about the 21st of g her, and the signature C. J. 3 zie, on that voucher, was his handwriting in the voucher .at t was the handwriting of one clerks in the office. J aines Archibald Robertson keeper in the Public Works ]

ment, engaged on the Tahora f stated that during the period i tion he was timekeeper in the of the work mentioned in the v< No such person as W. Herbe been head man of any party,, ployed as a worker, on any wo der his control; moreover, n< work—namely, a borrowing for was ever done in that locality. I er signed a time sheet to ccrr with this voucher produced. Hi such work been done, he wouh had to sign a time sheet to same, and it was impossible fo work to have been done witho knowledge. William Wilson, clerk in cha the imprest account in the Tre Wellington, produced the accuse prest statement to the Treasu the period ended October I2rh, R which the sum of £5536 6s 1] claimed credit for. In the coi voucher, giving details, was shov payment of £65 Is Id to W. He and accused was duly croditec having expended that amount. -None of the witnesses were examined by Mr. Macalister, ai cuscd, who bad nothing to say, pleaded guilty, and was coramitl the Supreme Court, Wellingto this charge. THE THIRD CASE.

The accused was then charged Jarly with regard to a voucher ar quittance for £62 7s 6d, allegi have been paid to one G. Wilso: -2nd November, 1911, and utterai the voucher in December, 1911. Charles John McKenzie, res engineer stationed at Stratford, evidence as to the voucher, on i the charge was based. The hand uig on the voucher was that of tl cm sod, but the signature* was ness’s.

1 eter Keller gave evidence on similar to that tendered by him ing the hearing of the second ch i fie head man was shown as G. Wi and the locality of the work bet w miles 30 chains and 27 mile chains, and the nature cf the wor signaled as formation, carried ou t ween October 9th and November J • I< l re A as 110 such party at that pi as 58 W. at Whangamomoiia, as si on the voucher produced. In add to “G. Wilson’s” signature there another that looked like “J. Gwi —he knew of no such man as the ter. The work as specified in the clier produced was never carried and lie had never certified that J work was carried out. Graham Fei on was his overseer at the tim question, and was in charge of the ion on which the work was allege ave been done. His timekeeper mg that period was James Rober James Robertson also tendered ’ enco for the prosecution on lines i hm to his former deposition. He 1 of no “G. ilson,” between c mentioned, being in the capaclt head man. Graham Ferguson, overseer, gav> evidence that G. Wilson head man), and J. Gwynne (as sei man) were non-existent. GoTge S White, iinekeep°r. pos'd that he knew a George Will employed on tlm lire ° -A her and November, 1911, but he