DOCUMENTS FORGED

Taranaki Daily News, 13 November 1934, Page 5

DOCUMENTS FORGED

GUILT OF AUCKLAND MAN TRANSFER OF EXTRAVAC SHARES. PURCHASERS AT NEW PLYMOUTH. JURY RECOMMENDS LENIENCY. Richard Albert Dailey, Auckland, the inventor of a food preservative process commercially handled by a company known as Extravac, Ltd., was, at yesterday’s session of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth found guilty on nine charges of forging and uttering share transfer documents in connection with the company. The jury, in returning the verdict, strongly recommended Dailey to mercy. He was remanded for sentence until the conclusion of the criminal sessions. The forgery charges related to transactions alleged to have taken place at Auckland or elsewhere in New Zealand oh or about September 7, 1933. The following share transfers were involved: William Tuson, 12 shares; Rupert Gadd, -30 shares; F. E. Gadd, 30 shares; Ada Gadd, 30 shares; J. E. Gadd, 30 shares; A. E. Reesby, 24 shares; J. McNeill, 30 shares; H. N. Chilcott, .24 shares; J. N. Bethell, six shares. The uttering was alleged to have taken place at Auckland on or. about September 16 when Dailey caused to be presented at the office of the stamp registrar the share transfer forms for registration. Mr. R. H. Quilliam prosecuted for the Crown and Dailey was represented by Mr. J. F. W. Dickson and Mr. F. W. Schramm. The following jury was empannelled: Messrs.' W. Bint (foreman), A. L. Kitchingman, H. N. Rowe, T. Portway, N. L. Hanwright, C. H. Fox, J. Bird, A. "E. Melody, C. Aroa, J. L. Baxter, L. H. Philpott and J. K. Nodder. The. Crown Prosecutor said that in June of last year a company known as Extravac, Ltd.', was registered at Auckland. Dailey was made the managing director and 6000 shares were allowed to him in consideration of services. In August a canvass was made for the sale of shares in arid about New Plymouth by a man named Payne. The jury would appreciate the difference between buying shares in a company and buying them for a person to whom they had already been allotted. Nine applications for shares had been received for new shares in the company from New Plymouth. The nine applicants would give evidence that the names on the transfer forms were not theirs and the prosecution alleged that ihe forgery was made by Dailey. The evidence of a handwriting expert would be called *in support of this contention. The charges of uttering arose from Dailey taking the transfers to the stamp office at Auckland for registration.

Formal evidence of purchase of shares in the company and denial of the authenticity of signatures on the transfer forms was given by William Tuson, butcher, Rupert Gadd, grocer, F. E. Gadd, grocer, A. E. Reesby, butcher, J. McNeill, storekeeper and director of W. S. Ward and Company, N. H. Chilcott and J. N. Bethell, butchers.

EVIDENCE OF BUYERS. *’! All said that they had not seen the transfer forms until shown them about July this year. They had not heard any suggestion that, in consideration for Dailey’s resigning right to repayment of some £6OO owing to him by the company and 3000 shares, no criminal action would Joe taken against him for the alleged forgeries. They had received scrip for the shares they had purchased. Irwin S. Malloney, assistant-registrar of companies, Auckland, gave evidence of the registration of the Extravac Company. He said he received transfer forms and a requisition form purporting to be signed by Dailey. Agreement for the original allotment of shares was also produced. . Robert F. Moore, civil and mining engineer, Auckland, said he was interested in Extravac, Ltd. He saw the. transfer forms in question at the company’s office about November, 1933, when the accused was absent in England on business for the company. He discovered certain irregularities. Dailey returned from England on June 25, 1934. Witness examined the transfers and application forms in the offices of the company. He knew that Dailey had 6000 shares in the company, in addition to 100 he had purchased for a director’s qualification. He knew Payne had been employed by the managing director to make a public canvass for subscription to the company. Cross-examined, Moore denied that he had been at any meeting at which it was suggested that, if Dailey resigned £6OO due to him by the company and 3000 shares, there would be no action taken against him. He had not wished to replace Dailey as chairman of directors. He was no longer on the directorate of the company. H. W. Scott, an Auckland handwriting expert and an employee of the Auckland Electric-Power Board, said that he had examined the transfer forms and specimens of Dailey’s handwriting and was of the opinion that the handwriting on the body of the forms was Dailey’s and that the majority of signatures bore characteristics similar to those of Dailey’s handwriting. In the case of McNeill the terminal “1” had been omitted. To Mr. Dickson, he said that, in his opinion, the attempt at forgery was a very poor one. There was very little attempt to copy the signatures of those who were supposed to have signed the application forms other than the evidence of carbon having been used for tracing. There was no trace anywhere of erasure. Both pencil and carbon marks were clearly visible.

Detective P. Nalder, Auckland, said that in response to a complaint from the company he had interviewed Dailey and shown him certain transfer forms suggesting that Dailey might have information in view of the fact that Tuson and F. E. Gadd had stated that their signatures had been forged. He was aware that the company was divided into two hostile camps, Dailey refused to give him verbal information. Mr. Schramm, outlining the case for the defence, said no effort would be made by Dailey to deny that he had filled in the transfer forms. He had 'had the honest, if mistaken, belief, that he could do so. He handed in the transfer forms attached to the original application forms. There was- no attempt to conceal the business. No one had suffered and no fraud had been committed, nor had any loss been sustained by any of the parties. The entire office of the company knew of what accused had done. It might have been a foolish and mistaken action, but it was not a criminal act. To forge one must commit the criminal act with criminal intent.

Dailey, giving evidence, said he was the inventor of the Extravac food preservative method. He was planning to go to England in September, 1933. He was anxjous to get everything cleared up and the shareholders to get their scrip before he left. At the time the application forms were distributed the transfer forms were not printed. He had told his fellow directors just what he had done—that he had copied the application signatures on to the transfer forms. The company was anxious to get money and there was an arrangement by which he and Osborne could sell some of their shares and lend the, money to the company. The directors were aware of this arrangement. He sailed from London on May 11,

having received particulars of the trouble by letter. He could have sailed earlier, only Moore had left him stranded in London so that he had to obtain assistance from the High Commissioner’s office. On his return it had been suggested to him that he forego the £6OO owing to him by the company and the shares he held in the company when no prosecution would be made. He had refused, saying that he would not be blackmailed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Quilliam, Dailey said he instructed Payne to make it clear that he was selling an interest in Dailey’s shares. A bonus was given the buyers, for cash payment. This could not be done with ordinary shares issued by the company. Dailey repeated that he told Osborne, Moore, Edgar, and Whitelaw, all connected with the Extravac office, that he had copied the names on the transfers and made no endeavour to conceal that fact. Albert W. Osborne said in 1933 he was a director of Extravac, Ltd. He saw the transfer and application forms pinned together in the office. Dailey said they were in order and that he had made out the transfer forms himself. Moore and members of the office staff were present at this conversation. To Mr. Quilliam: Dailey did not tell me that he had signed other people’s names without their authority. I suppose •that I would have known he was committing an irregularity if it had been put that way. Summing up, His Honour said a great amount of irrelevant matter had been introduced into the case, but the issue was simple. There could be no doubt that the documents were false. This in itself did not constitute a forgery, if the accused did not make the forgery with full knowledge and intend that it should be acted upon as genuine. The only point in doubt was—did Dailey make out the transfer forms and write in the names of the buyers intending the document to be acted upon as genuine—as if the signatures were genuine. The jury returned with its verdict after a retirement of slightly more than half an hour.