ALLEGED FORGERY AND PERJURY

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 80, 13 March 1931, Page 5

ALLEGED FORGERY AND PERJURY

; SALE OF MOTOR-CAR SEQUEL TO CIVIL CASE ‘A.' HEARING AT STRATFORD lACCUBSD COMMITTED FOR TRIAL Charges of forgery and perjury were fald against Gordon Leonard Taylor at the Stratford Magistrate’s Court to-day, when Messrs. W. L. Kennedy and E. Marfell, J.P.’s, were pn the Bench. Mr. P. O’Daa appeared for the accused. Detective Meiklejohn, for the prosecution, called James William Pooley, clerk at * the Stratford Magistrate’s Court, who deposed that in tile proceedings in the case of F. A. Newton -v. L. Taylor in the court on August 29; 1930, the claim was for a sum of £23 10s, leaving a balance payable to the plaintiff on a sixcylinder Buick motor-car, sold by the plaintiff to defendant, the purchaseT>rice being shown as £35. A deposit of ,£2 was paid on the date of the sale on January 24, 1930. Three other payments on account were made, namely, £3, £4 and £2 10s, a total of £ll 10s. The case came on for hearing on December 1, 1930, before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M. The witnesses were the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s wife and Mr. A. O. Hugo. Plaintiff gave evidence that he had sold the- car to the defendant for the sum of'£3s on terms, and he produced the terms and a receipt for £2, which he said was in the handwriting of the defendant. Mr. P. Thomson-(Stratford) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and Mr. L. A. Taylor (Hawera) on behalf of the defendant;. The plaintiff said that some time later he received from the defendant a request for a receipt for

*£9, being the amount lie had to pay toff the car. Plaintiff was shown the receipt (exhibit B) by Mr. L. A. Taylor.*- Plaintiff said that that was the Receipt I6r £9 he had sent to the defendant and* that it had not been taltered by him as it then appeared to have been. Plaintiff said the reIcelpt sent- by him showed the price ap £35, received £9, balance £26. fThe newspaper advertisement showing the car for sale was produced, and the plaintiff showed two notes Which he- had received with payments front defendant, also a letter from defendant dated Tariki, April, Specimens of the plaintiff’s handwriting, written at the request of jMr. L. ‘A.’Taylor before the receipt jof exhibit B, was .produced. Plain(tflf said that he had never received tge sum of £29 from defenlant. Mrs. Newton,'-plaintiff’s wife, said she had

never received the sum of £29 from

defendant; also that the signature, "lean Newton,” on exhibit B, was npt in 'her handwriting. Three spedmen signatures by Mrs. Newton, Written in the were produced, also 'a deed with Mrs. Newton's signature. , ■ "Not Mine” ' At the hearing, proceeded witness, defendant, in evidence being duly gworn by witness, denied that be had Written the receipt (exhibit B) for ►£2. >He said he had paid the sum *>f £2, his actual words being: ‘T

idld not write it out. It Is not mine.” »He said he had not seen it before. He said he did not write to Mr. Newton asking for a , receipt for £9, although later on he admitted that the request to send a stamped receipt ,fdr £9 was in his handwriting. He that he had verbally arranged jwith the plaintiff to accept £29 in full settlement for the car. Plaintiff came to see him at the Tariki factory, and he there handed to the plaintiff -a sum of money In notes sufficient with what he had already paid to make up £29. He did not know tfte actual amount he paid at Following on that payment ■ tie received a receipt (exhibit B) as one for £29, and that the receipt as produced In court was the same as it ;was when he received it. It was pointed, out to him that the receipt now showed a balance of £6, althoufh 'he. claimed that he paid £29 In full paymeht. He said he took no exception to the receipt showing the balance. Witness was present during the whole of the hearing. Defendant was cross-examined about the figure 2 in exhibit B, and he gaid it had not ben put in by him In any of the three places in which It appeared, ‘and that the obliteration In front of the figure 6 had not been made by him. Mr. O’Dea: You would not say that defendant was skilled in court procedure?—Witness: He was an average witness, a young chap. In answer to other questions, witness said defendant was not present during the whole of the hearing. He did not hear any of the evidence given. He had a solicitor acting for him. Mr. Taylor said his client was unable to leave the factory where he was employed. The Owner of the Car

F. A. Newton, electrician employed by the Taranaki Power Board, residing at Cloton Road, Stratford, gave evidence of having advertised in January a Buick car for sale at £3O cash. Defendant called on witness on January 24, 1930, and was taken for a rim in the car. He was satisfied and the amount agreed on was 1£35 on terms. Witness asked defendant to write out the receipt for £2 and the terms of the sale, and be did so. ',He paid £2, and the receipt was kept by witness with the agreement merely in ignorance of business methods. Witness stamped and signed the agreement and receipt. The sum of £5 was to be paid at the end of each month, but £7 on February 3, 1930. On February 4 witness received a letter from defendant, stating that he would square up in three weeks’ time as he was receiving a sum of money sooner thgn expected. No money was received and witness called on defendant at the factory, being promised some money. Shortly afterwards a sum of £4 was received from defendant, entering the amount on the receipt. Then £3 was received and some time after that again £2 10s. Notes were enclosed with two of the amounts: there may have been one with the third, but . If so he. did not remember and could £Ot produce one. He asked for re-

ceipt for £9, being amounts of the deposit (£2) and payments of £4 and £3. In sending the sum of £2 10s, defendant said he would send more in a fortnight, but if witness was not satisfied he could pay the money back and take the car. After the request for receipt he wrote one out for £9 (exhibit B), stating: Price £35, received £9, balance £26. It was quite clearly written with no alteration in the figures. The figure “2” had been inserted in three places and “2” deleted in front of £26, leaving a balance ol £6. Witness could not say what he did .with it or who posted the receipt. The next time he saw it was in court when defendant’s solicitor showed it to him. He could not swear to having placed the stamp on it. The handwriting on the stamp was not witness’s, the signature' being “G. Newton.” He would not swear it was not his wife’s signature, but it was similar to it. He gave a specimen signature to the court during the case. The letters were received “Tty' registered post. No further letters were received from defendant after the receipt of £2 IDs. Witness wrote once requesting payment, but got no reply. He saw defendant three or four times in Tariki and made further claims for payment as agreed upon. Promises were given but no money was forthcoming. Then proceedings were taken in court on December 1, 1930, for the recovery of £23 10s. Judgment was given against defendant with costs, Witness heard the defendant give evidence and say he never saw the receipt for £2. At first he said he had not seen the two notes produced by witness, but later admitted he had written them. Regarding the receipt for £29, he said it was in the same condition as he received it, and the figure “2” was in them when he received it; also he denied deleting the figure “2” before the “6.” There was no conversation at Tariki on any 'occasion about a balance of !£6. Mr. Hiikey was on the lorry on occasions and knew witness was trying to collect money from defendant. Witness remembered hearing the defendant say in court he had no objection to the £6 balance being mentioned in the receipt (exhibit B). In cross-examination, witness said he had been married for seven years and had a family of four. Their marital relations were quite good. It was possible the signature was his wife’s. His wife never had occasion to sign receipts of the kind before. It was written at night, but he thought it was not possible to make any mistake about what was written. His initials were “P. A.,” and his wife’s were "G. N,” It was possible his wife signed it. Witness saw defendant three or four times after the receipt for £9 was given, but he could hot give the dates. It was not his wish that the present proceedings were taken.

Percy Thomson, solicitor, Stratford, who appeared for the plaintiff Newton in the Magistrate’s Court action, gave evidence of tiie proceedings and defendant’s statements. Handwriting Expert Alexander McHardy, retired bank manager, New Plymouth, gave evidence as an expert on handwriting. Referring to exhibit B he said: “In my opinion thte receipt has been altered. I think the ‘received’ part has been altered from ‘received £l9’ to ‘received 9.’ There has been an obliteration in front of the “6” —it looks as though it was originally £l6. The amount on the first line may have or may not have been originally £9. It may have been altered from £l9. It has been altered from another amount, probably £l9. It is the same style of ‘2’ on the stamp, but altered from a previous figure, probably originally 19. It might have originally been £9, and it looks as though the ‘2’ has been put in front of the ‘9.’ It is quite possible that the receipt was altered twice —by placing a T before the ‘9’ opposite the word ‘received,’ and 'V before the ‘9’ on the stamp showing the balance as £l6, and then altering the ‘l’ in front of the ‘6.’ It is very difficult to tell what figure was in front of the ‘6); there may have been no figure originally.” Detective Meiklejohn said he saw defendant on a farm at Normanby on January 29, when he told witness ho was quite willing to give a voluntary statement about the matter; and also gave three samples of his handwrit-

ing. Accused pleaded not guilty and was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth,