SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 7 May 1925, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

TIMARU—MAY 6, 1925

Before His Honour Mr Justice Adams

The criminal sessions of the Supreme .Court were contniUoa in 'iiniaru J'ssteixiay Ooioio rus nouour Mr ousl.cu Attains.

FORGERY AND THEFT. James xuurray ws that while au eiupmj eo or the uv/fcinnieiii. iil the x’ost wiuee sayings jj.ai.iw at jjttirue, he lorgeu two udcuuiei.ts whxcu euatuea Jinn tu wituuraw a su..i m -—oo to which he had no claim, Uwu »u.e.i money was tue property 01 a w.epositui named .(. it. Macuouaiu. ■. .. . Accused pleaded not guilty, and was deienueu by Mr A . li. r'attusou. iui \V. JO, Ca.iipue.il, Clown do.,c.tor, appeareti lor tue prosecution. The case was heard beiorp the following jury; —it. Jenkins J. Jionaiuson, J. \V. Fowler, tv. tnunison, ts. Collett, J±. V. Cy-AV "• Mack, G. itamsay, C. hi. W..wall, J. It. Kobertson, A. O'Connor anu A. h. Jones. - . Mr Campbell outlined the case ioi the prosecution, and explained ror tne benent of ine jury, tne method ajv which the business of tne i'ost office Savings Bank is conducted. Shortly stateo, the Crown alleged tliat tne accused'had, on May 2, id 23, at hairdo, forged two documents, one being a notice for the withdrawal ot £2uu, tins Having been sent by telegraph to tno Timaru Tost Otiice, and signed “J. It. Macdonald,” who had £6Uo standing to his credit in the Tost Unice at that time. The other lorged document was ail order purporting to have been signed by a. depositor who could not attend personally to withdraw his money, and •the Crown alleged that it had been signed by the accused without the knowledge or consent of Macdonald, inhere was no doubt, the Crown Solicitor sfud, but that tlic accused had got this l!MO, and had put it to his own use. Cohtiscl explained that Macdonald lived At Albury, and that he was friendly with accused at the time of tne .fraud; and he detailed the modus operand!, by which the accused had commit! ed the theft and forgery. The accused alleged that this £2UU had been lent’:to him by Macdonald to whom lie had given a promissory note for its ror payment. This, however, was denied uv Macdonald. The accused alleged that he hail been authorised to withdraw the £2OO from Macdonald's account in the way that it had been withdrawn, but Macdonald denied this; and there Was. no debit for the. £2OO in Macdonald’s Savings Bank book. If the amount had been withdrawn in a bona fide way Macdonald would have had to produce his savings bank book at the tune, and the withdrawal would have been noted there in the usual way. Counsel put in samples of the disputed njid of tlie genuine signatures, in the case, for the benefit of the jury, and then called evidence. N. D. Mangos, accountant _in the Post .Office Savings Bank at Tiniaru, described clearly and ;ii detail the system under which Post Office Savings Batik business is carried on. Witness weilt on to say that the accused had been in the service of the Department for a good many years, and he had been recognised’ as a very capablci officer. Witness said he was well acquainted with Murray’s 'handwriting, and ho pointed it out or. the exhibits'before the Court. James Ronald Macdonald had no-account in the Post Office Savings’Bank at Timaru. On May 2, 1923, Mat-dohald’s ledger account .showed a withdrawal of £2OO. Witness identified the withdrawal notice, and a document purnorting to give A. Riddle (then clerk in the Fairlie Post Office) authority to receive the money on behalf of Macdonald. That £2OO had been paid out of the Post Office funds and Riddle had acknowledged receipt of the atnbunt. The initials of the. pavingout officer, on the warrant, were tliqse of the accused. The withdrawal of. the £2OO was not entered in Macdonald’s pass hook. For a great many years witness had had to act on his judgment of signatures. When this case came under his notice. he had carefully examined the signatures on all the docuirients and was satisfied that Macdonald’s genuine signature was not on the documents before the Court, which were alleged to be forgeries, sTo Mr Paterson; When a person opened an account at the Post Office only one specimen signature was taken. Macdonald’s specimen signature was in Tl'iniaru. Macdonald’s pass book showed that he Irad made two withdrawals through, the accused—one on March 15 (£3O) and °ne on April 9 (£25). Acting as a Bank official, Murray’s initials appeared twice in Macdonald’s pass book prior to the data of the alleged forgerv. The documents which were alleged to have been forged were sent to Timaru, and the signatures were passed, but not by witness. lie believed tiiat accused would be able to forgo Macdonald’s signature, even though ha might have seen it only tiviee He would require to have it in front of hint at the tune of the forgery.

Counsel ,iskod witness to pick out the forgeries fretr. the genuine signatures, on the documents before the Court; and he asked the witness to do this while he (counsel) held the documents in nis hands.

: Witness said he could not properly examine the documents that way. His Honour said it was perfectly obvious that such a test would be unfair, arid no intelligent jury would place any reliance upon it. Air Paterson said that the only reason he was holding the documents in his .hands was to cover up thj dates on them; the signatures were perfect!}' clear, but lie did not wish tlio witness to get any clue from the. dates.

His Honour told the witness that he could, if he wished', declino to answer tho question, as rlic condition under which Air Paterson was showing tho documents made it quite* impossible for a proper examination of them to be made.

Mr Campbell also objected to the suggested test as being put in an unfair way. The witness said that he could only see the documents sideways on, as Mr Paterson was holding them. Mr Paterson said that tho witness could take the documents in his own hands so Jong as he covered up the dates. ■

His Honmy told 1 witness that the test was quite unfair under the* conditions imposed by Mr Paterson, and that witness could please himself Whether lie made any attempt to pick Out the genuine from the forged signatures. Witness examined the documents and selected two out of six signatures which he said were forgeries, and they proved to be the two which he had previously sworn to as forgeries. Tn reply to Mr Paterson, witness sairl the forgeries were* vorv good ones and required careful insncction to detect. Ho was not aware that from Januarv to Mav in 1923. the accused' bad filled in the bodv of thirteen withdrawal ..forms, notwithstanding that ihc*.'"teguJajtions sa'd that i.bo form sbon'd be filler! in bv the depositor. Pndi details did not all come under v'<ness’s persona! notice, and he could not apeak as to them. In replv to His Honour, witness said there would be. no difficulty in a person who desired +o forgo another '""n’s signature, mak'ng a tracing or taking a photograph of it.

Allan Riddlo, telegraphist, now stationed at Hawera, said that in May, 1923, he was stationed at Fniriio. The accused was in the Funlie office at that time. On May 2, 1923, Murray asked witness to’sign a withdrawal slip from the Savings Bank, saying that he (witness) had been made authorised agent to withdraw some money on behalf of Macdonald, who, lie said, could not attend personally. 'Witness knew that Murray and Macdonald were great friends. He refused to sign the withdrawal slip in the afternoon, and that evening witness was asked by the postmaster (Mr Keinan) to sign for tho withdrawal. "Witness again refused, but tho postmaster said he wished to got the thing squared up. After having refused twice to sign, he did sign on the postmaster asking liim to do so for tiio third time. The signature on the withdrawal slip produced was his, but tho words “authorised agent” were written by Murray. Witness did not receive tho £2OO, aud ho told the postmaster that he wanted him to understand that he (witness) was not receding the money. He did not know Macdonald personally. In accepting withdrawal ronns' from' depositors, witness iiad never filled in the amount. There was a rule against it. Witness had' never paid out to a depositor who could not produco his pass book. It was against tho rule to pay out a , withdrawal unless the depositor produced his pass book. The object in insisting upon the production of tho pasjs book was to see that the account which was bciner drawn upon had sufficient money in it) and in order to make the debit entry in the book. To Mr Paterson: Witness did not suspect Murray when he refused to sign tho withdrawal, but he refused' solely on the ground that he knew it would be wrong for him to sign. G. W. Keinan, postmaster at Fairlie. said that on April 9, 1923, Macdonald had withdrawn £25 from the Fairlie Rost Office Savings Bank, and the accused had on that occasion paid out tho cash before the authority to pay had been received front Timaru. On March 15 Macdonald had withdrawn £.30 from his account, and again in this instance Murray had' paid out the money before lie had get the authority to pay from Timaru. In the case of the £25 withdrawal tfie amount had been filled in by Murray, though officers of the Department were forbidden to fill in the amounts. Witness would not pay out to a depositor who did not have his pass book with him at the time. With regard to the withdrawal of £2OC on May 2, 1923, witness said lie saw the documents at night when he was checking the day’s work. Murray had then paid the money out. When Mr Riddle refused' to sign, witness asked Murray it everything was all right, and Murray said it*was. Witness had asked Riddle to sign in order to complete the documents, as he was; tlie authorised agent. Riddle at first refused to sign and witness then asked Murray if everything was in order. Murray assured him it was, so witness then asked Ricjdle again to sign, in order to complete the'documents. Witness assumed that Murray had handed the £2OO over to Macdonald, and had no suspicion that anything was wrong, Murray was a very capable officer aiid well Up to his work. Riddle assured witness that he had not received the money. Having no cause for suspicion at that time witness had not questioned the signatures, which appeared to be all right. Murray had never been short in his cash at the office, Witness checked all documents, and the only way that Murray could defeat this .check would be by failing to record an item of revenue. On the day of this forgery, deposits totalling about £250 had been received, so that Murray had ample cash out of which to, take, this- £2OO.

' To MrPaterson : There was no signature of Macdonald s in the Fairlie office on May 2 as all , the documents" had been sent to Timaru. Macdonald’s signature on the documents in. question, appeared to him, to bo all right, and lie looked upon Riddle's signature as a •hiere. , -*matter"'6f form.’; At the time, witness had no suspicion of Murray, whom he knew to be friendly with Macdonald.

James Ronald Macdonald, farm labourer, Albury; said he knew :the- accused Murray, with whom ho was friendly. Murray had borrowed money from him at different times, about £lO altogether. He had in May, 1923, gone to Albury where witness was working, and asked him for a loan of £2OO. Witness asked' him what was up. Murray replied Hint lie was in some trouble. Witness said lie would not lend it, and Murray would not tell him what the trouble was. Murray pressed him. to lend the money, hut witness refused. Murray said he had two bottles of beer in the ear, and that witness could have them. Witness and Murray and the latter’s taxi-driver drank one bottle between them. Murray then drove off. He did' not ask witness to sign any papers, nor had he at any time after this, asked witness to lend him any money. Witness bad £(300 in tlio Post Office Savings Bank at that time. Witness had never given anyone authority to draw any money out of his account; nor had lie'ever withdrawn any amount without presenting his pass book. On October, 1923, witness went to the Post Office to withdraw £ls. The* postmaster told him there was only £9 in his account. Witness said there should be over £20.0. The postmaster then asked to see his pass book, and witness gave it to the postmaster. Witness knew nothing about £2OO having been drawn out of his account on May 2, 1923, and he had given Murray no authority to withdraw it. The signature on the withdrawal form, “J. R. Macdonald;” was not. his; nor was the signature, “J. R. Macdonald,” on the form authorising Riddle to receive the money. Having met Murray in the Burke’s Pass hotel about the end of May, witness asked him for some of the £lO which he had borrowed from him. Murray gave him £7. He still owed witness £3. He told Murray that he had heard a rumour in Fairlie that he (Murray.) had “beaten him” for £2OO, and asked him whether there was anything in it. Murray replied: “Never on your life, Mac.” Witness did' not know !iow Murray could have beaten him for £2OO, and dismissed the matter from his mind. Witness held no 1.0. U. from Murray. He had received a letter from a firm of solicitors in Taumarunui advising him that Murray had instructed them to write stating that he wished to pay tho £2OO which ho owed him (plus interest), and for which he. (witness) was said in the letter to hold' an 1.0. U. Witness replied that he had never lent Murray £2OO, and held no T.0.U., from him. The solicitors had not replied to this letter. Witness- now knew Riddle, who- worked at the Faiilie Post Office in 1923. hut did not know him at tho time of the forgerv.

To Mr Paterson: Witness knew that the signature oil tho forged document was not his because he had never made a withdrawal of £2OO. Witness had not gone to see Mpi-ray at the Burke’s Pass hotel in order io collect this £20(1 from him. Nobody had told' him definitely that Murray had “done him in” for £200; he just hoard it, and the only nerson he bad spoken to about it was Murray. Witness denied that he had ever fold envbodv that Murray owed him a lot of money. Since Mav. 1923, witness had none through be tween £3OO and £4OO.

Mr Paterson: “I put it to you Macdonald. that vou lent Murray £200.” This was stoutly denied' hv the witness.

Detective Walsh said be bad been o’ von charge of the inquiry concerning this matter. (In interviewing- Afurrav >n November last Mm-av told him that he was a frond of Macdonald's who had a considerable sum of money to his credit in tho Post Often at Tiniaru. Oy being told that Macdonald accused him of forging a withdrawn] for £2OO from Macdonald's account Murray "said

that in May, 1923, he was employed as a relieving postal official at Fairlie, and' that on i\lay 2 he was approximately £2OO short in his cash at the Post Office. He was going on holiday leave the next day, and it was necessary to replace the* xhottey before he left Ho said ho know Macdonald well and decided to borrow the money from him. Murray said he took a taxi in Fail-lie and drove to Ford's farm at Albury, where ho saw Macdonald, and asked him for a loan, of £200; that, Macdonald' agreed to lend from tho money which he had in the Post Office, and that he filled in the necessary forms and signed them. Later Murray said he had made a mistake* and that the words “two hundred” had been written in by himself. Murray also said that he had given Macdonald an 1.0. U., for £2lO, payable seven days later. He said 1 the documents had been sent to Tiniaru and that he had received tho £2OO. On being told that'there was no withdrawal entry for tho £2OO in Macdonald’s pass book, Murray said that Macdonald did not have tho pass book with him, and that as his home was some distance* away, there was no time to get it. He added that ho had told Macdonald to take the pass book to him tho first time he was in Fail-lie, and that he would then fix. the withdrawal entry. Murray also said that Riddle had only signed in a formal way and that he had not handled tho money. Macdonald, he said, had asked him on many occasions to repay this money, and that Macdonald had' told about a dozen people that ho had lent it. Witness asked who these people were, but Murray refused to say, stating that if he was charged with tho theft of tho money he would call them as witnesses. Accused’s statement was committed to writing at his dictation ; he said it was true, and he signed it. (The witness read tho statement.) To Mr Paterson: Murray had taken pains to clear Riddle of all suspicion, and' said that the £2OO was a loan from Macdonald to him (Murray). Accused had told him that he was innocent of everything. Daniel M. Snushall, farm labourer, at present employed in the Mackenzie Country, said that he had seen Murray on one occasion at the Burke’s Pass hotel. Witness was in companv with Macdonald, and they wore in the liar together. They did not know lieforo their arrival at the hotel that Murray was there. No mention was made of the £2OO bv either of them. J. W. Skinner said that in 1923 Ire kept (be Kimhell hotel, between Fan-lie and Burke’s Pass. He know Macdonald and Mnrrav well, hut had' never heard it said hv anyone that Mardonald had lent Mnrrav £2OO, though he !>nd a faint recollootioif of having heard MarteneM and Murray talking about “a fiver.”

Ocm-ge W. Cogar. taxi proprietor at Fairlie, said that be lied driven Muri-v h’s tav> on s-avera! occasions. Dr: "Unv 9. 1923, bo ha.l d-ivon him to Mr Ford's fa’-m. Albur>\ Mnrrav spoke to Macdonald’ there but it was just n casual conversation, and mono'- was pot Sn*uo little* time la tor n-it-”oss bad seen Mnrrav rt. thn Burke’s Pass hotel when he bad fopr £SO notes, wliieli bo said be was bolding for a pnrtv nn oountrv. At 5.30 n.m. the Court adjourned till ten o’clock this morning.