£l50 FINE FOR FORGERY

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1932, Page 9

£l50 FINE FOR FORGERY

WANGANUI MAN CONVICTED

“HAD AUTHORITY TO USE INVOICES”

MR. JUSTICE REED SURPRISED,

DEFINITIONS OF WORD CONTFLICT.

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wanganui, Nov. 8.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Jabez William Mace Luxford, ex-chairman of the Technical College and ,the Fire Board, of forging documents in the name of Ross and Glendining in order to supply goods to the Technical College Board. It was stated in evidence that Luxford had obtained supplies of bill heads from Ross and Glendining’s local branch. The jury added a rider that in their opinion Luxford had authority to use Ross and Glendining’s invoices and might have thought he had authority to also sign the receipts on the vouchers. Following the verdict of guilty in respect to the forgery charge relating to Luxford’s dealings with the Technical College Board Luxford pleaded guilty to a similar charge concerning the Fire Board purchases of goods. While he expressed surprise that people could be found to aid Luxford in doing what he did, Mr. Justice Reed met Mr. W. J. Treadwell’s plea for leniency by imposing a fine of £l5O and £5O costs on the first indictment and ordering Luxford to come up for sentence if called on. The warrant is to be suspended for a month to allow Luxford to find the money. The imprisonment for default is not to exceed. I'2 months. The submissions of Mr. Treadwell as to the definition of forgery and His: Honour’s ruling as to its definition within the meaning of New Zealand law did not coincide and. this aspect of the case could, have been reserved for consideration by the Court of Appeal had Mr. Treadwell so wished.

In brief counsel’s contention was that if the law in England applied in New Zealand, the defence he had. raised on behalf of Luxford could have shown that he honestly believed he had authority to use Ross and Glendining’s name to complete the vouchers. His Honour quoted a New Zealand definition of forgery against Mr. Treadwell’s contention, stressing the. fact that he was bound by the Court of Appeal to do so. He would ask the jury what it ibought in regard to Luxford’s having authority to sign the name and in fairness to Mr. Treadwell would reserve that aspect for argument before the Court of Appeal. When the verdict and the jury’s rider were announced Mr. Treadwell after consideration decided that he would not ask His Honour to reserve anything for the Court of Appeal.