CHARGE OF FORGERY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 7 October 1926, Page 4

CHARGE OF FORGERY

AGAINST WAIAIATE BUSINESS MAN. HEARING ADJOURNED... At tho Magistrate’s Court at Waimato yesterday, George Sunderland Aleredith, of tho firm of Meredith and Co., was charged, before Mr .10. D. Mosley, S.M., that on or about Juno 27th, 1926, ho did forgo a 'document purporting to.bo.an agreement between \V. G. Morrow and Meredith and Co., with the intention that it should bo acted upon as genuine. Air Einslio appeared for accused, and Detcctivo Walker appeared for tho police. William Garrett Morrow, said lio remembered somo potatoes being .missing, from his farm on June 28 last. Tho day previous to that (Sunday) he heard from accused, who rang' him up and asked him to come in:, straight away, as ho wanted to see him. Ho saw Aleredith at his office, where ho told witness that the police were looking after somo potatoes, tho ones which accused had taken away tho day before. Not much was dono at Aleredith’s offico, but an agreement was drawn up. Tho agreement produced looked like it, and tho signature on it was witness’s.. Tho agreement referred to tho potatoes that Aleredith had already taken possession of, and said something about £ls. Witness did not receive the moijey then, but did later, not on October 2 .though. Moir, who had come to take witness home, witnessed tho agreement. Wit-, ness did not act on the agreement in' any way, as ho did not think it genuine, and ho (lid not sell any potatoes in nocordanco with its conditions. Ho thought tho object of the agreement was to make it appear that everything was all right. Witness had about five or six acres of potatoes. Ho gave l’yne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd. security over his crops, growing and to bo grown during that season. The day before tho agreement with Meredith was made out, tho latter removed somo potatoes from witness’s place. Meredith had been at tho farm onco or twico since tho detectives had visited it. . When Aleredith had come inside ho said“ You’ve mado a mess of things.” Witness did not remember if Aleredith said anything about a gaol or lock-up. Witness wrote a letter, which Aleredith dictated, and which he 'said was to mako things right. Witness could nob say now what the letter was in elfcct. What he -wrote in -.the letter was lies, and tho second statement to tho police was correct.

In cross-examination, witness said he did not know how much of his own seed he planted. It might have been four acres, but they wero planted after the bill-of-salo had been given to Pyne, Gould, Guinness. Aleredith did not supply lam .with any seed, as stated in tho agreement, and witness did not get £ls on October 2, but he got several small amounts later. Altogether, ho got nearly £3O, the money having been paid since Christmas last. Witness did not grow any potatoes for Aleredith. Witness dug tho potatoes, and Aleredith’s men picked them up, sorted, and bagged them, and carted them away. Ho could not say whether ho had told Aleredith about tho bill-of-sale or not. To Detective Walker: Witness denied having sent AlcGimpsey down to the potato paddock on the night they wero taken away. The sacks -in which the potatoes were put were .charged to his current account with Pyne, Gould, Guinness. To tho Alagistrate: Accused sent down somo second-hand bags.. . Accused had got somo second-hand bags from witness, and ho understood they wore coming back. The potatoes were put in new bags, but some of the smaller potatoes .wero put in secondhand bags. George Treziso Williams, accountant at Pyne, Gould, Guinness’s, said he prepared the security agreement, which covered all crops growing or to be grown by Alorrow. It was agreed by Morrow, in witness’s presence, and was registered in tho Supreme Court on August 25, 1925. The removal of any potatoes would bo a breach of the security, unless with the authority' of the firm, and no such consent had been given. The area of land' Was defined in the agreement. George Bridges, civil engineer, Timaru, said that, instructed by All) Pitch, lio measured an area that had boon planted in potatoes, at Willowbridge, and found ono area to-be 51 acres. Ho bad been shown tho section bj- a representative of Pyne,- Gould, Guinness. Tho potatoes seemed to havo been planted parallel to tho road, but they were gono when witness got there, and it was difficult to say liow they rail.

William AlcGimpsey, farm labourer, said that until recently he 'had been working for Alorrow at Willowbridgc, and ho remembered tho day the potatoes were dug. The last of them wero dug on a Saturday. That night be saw a lorry, which bo believed was Aleredith’s, como into tho paddock, and they were loading potatoes when it was getting dark. Plo did not say anything to Aleredith at the time. Witness assisted in the planting of the potatoes, which were all in one break, as far as he know. Witness bad seen Alcrcdith often since, and bad spoken to him that day. Aleredith liad not endeavoured to got him to give false evidence. Cross-examined, witness . said that Alorrow had some seed of bis own which lio planted, alter which ho got more | seed, but bow many bags witness could I not say. After Alorrow’s own seed i had been planted, there would bo about | a n acre left unplanted which was ready i for potatoes. Sergeant Kidd said that on June 26, at about 10.30 p.m., lio received a com- . plaint from Pyne, Gould, Guinness that Aleredith was suspected of stealing : potatoes belonging to tho company. ! With Constables Palmer and Swan.wit- ! ness went* to accused’s yard tliat night, and found a lorry loaded with 64 sacks of potatoes, branded “W. Alorrow, Willowbridge.” Ho felt the radiator I of the lorry, and found it still warm. I He informed tho manager of Pyne, Gould, Guinness tho same night, of the potatoes being in Alcredith’s yard, j J. A. Gordon, employed by Pyne, Gould, Guinness as a grain salesman, ! sJtvo evidence that lie bad taken Air I Bridges to the paddock at Willow- ! bridge in which Alorrow grew tho potatoes. i W. E. Alorrison, grain salesman for I Pyne, Gould, Guinness, gave evidence i as to the deficiency of about 65 sacks jof potatoes received front Alorrow. Witness had been to Alorrow’s farm ono day, and counted the bags of potatoes Still standing in the paddock,■ there being about 80 to 90 sacks, which wero filled with pig and seed potatoes. _ Ho I could not tell then it any were missing IO" not On the way back bo examined I a truck standing at the railway siding I at Willowbridge, and found it to eimi tain bugs of potatoes, the bags being I branded” “W. Alorrow, Willowbndgei-”. ! These were not consigned to uit.ec-ffis | company, and no person had {minority i from bis firm to remove potatoes from I .Morrow’s property. ' . i To Mr Emslie: Witness said bis firm - bad not this season supplied any sccondI hand sacks to Alorrow. Ho delivered i (ilO empty sacks to Alorrow, and be I returned ‘275 empty and 2-18 full of ' potatoes, leaving a deficiency _ ot 87 ! sacks. Witness was not tailing into j consideration the 90 sacks of potatoes I in the second-band sacks which bo did i not supply. He was assuming that tho „, nv Slicks which Alorrow did not return

worn idled with potatoes. I Lucy IfoiTou’, . owing to giving non- ! committiil evidence, was permitted, .to ; lie treated as hostile. . The Magistrate ' said lie was not poing to liavo tlio ends . of iustiee defeated. , ! Resuming her evidence, witness said that she remembered accused coming to tho house ono night in Juno when

ft was dark. She did not hear all unit was said, but Aleredith said something about: “Seo what you have done. Your litisb'and will’got us into' trouble lor forgoyl” Aleredith and her husband wero talking in tho front room, and witness was in tho kitchen. She did not know wliat they wore talking about. She;did not remember telling tho dotectivo that Alarshall was saying that her husband would have to writo a letter to get them out of the trouble, as sho was not in tho room then.

ITis Worship: “How did you know about tho letter?” —“Aly husband talked about it often, but not in Alcredith’s presence. Continuing, witness said she_ remembered Aleredith and Aloir coming back again. They, wore in tho front room, and witness in tho kitchen. Aleredith produced a cheque for tho goods taken from the farm. Tho cheque was made out in witness’s name. . Sho did not remember Aleredith saying he had mado the cheque out in her name, because lie would not deal with a fool. Sho did not want to sign her name to the cheque, but did so. She also Signed another paper for Aleredith, but she did not know what,she was signing. Aleredith did not say he was expecting trouble and was trying to make his actions legal. . Witness said she was confused when sho made the. statement to the ‘ dotectivo. She signed tho cheque, and had not seen it .since. She did not remember Aleredith saying anything about forgery. Mr Emslie raised an objection to,the statement being put in, but His Worship would not allow tho objection. To'Air Emslie, witness said she knew her husband had potato ground; but did not know the area. She did not hear where ho got tho seed. Sho did not. know- about any dealings between Aleredith and her husband in October, and sho didn’t know tho potatoes wero under a bill-of-salo to Pyne, Gould, Guinness. It was in connection withthe wheat that she learned of the bill-of-salo over the potatoes. James Moir, -taxi-driver, Waimate, said he remembered going to accused s office in June last to get Alorrow to take him home. When witness went in, i Alorrow seemed to bo getting half of an agreement. . He heal'd Morrow say there was trouble about potatoes, and that he would havo to get his part of tho agreement fixed up. itness thought it was on a Sunday, but he could not swear to it. Dotectivo Walker: “Your memory gets better as you grow older To the Court: Detective Walker said Aloir’s evidence was different from what he mado in. the statement. To the Court: Witness said he had been thinking over his statement to tho detective, and he thought he must have been in Aleredith’s office a long time before June. . . Detective Walker asked permission to treat the witness as hostile. The Court: “I don’t think he-knows what tho truth is.” 'W Detective-Walker: “Did you receive any telephone message from Alereditli yesterday?’’ . . , ~ , , ~ After a good deal of thought, . the witness said no, and as far as he could, remember, lie had not received any message from anyone on belialr or Aleredith. , T Tho Court: “Be careful, Aloir. You are running pretty close. You might havo to answer a further charge. iNo man should hold a taxi license unless he is a respectable man.” Witness said Aleredith had never put words into his mouth, but he had void witness to he careful what lie said, Iho statement mado to the detective by witness was fairly well correct, but witness would nob,-uewear.rJ;o, tno date on which lie witnessed the agreement. It was his opinion that ho witnessed the' agreemont earlier than,June. Ho signed the ageement. The Court:' “Less than twelve months ago your memory was not too good. I think you can remember when you signed the agreement. i cannot remember-to a month. The Court: “You. are telling lies. Addressing; the detective, tho Court said: “Wo will have this man prose-cuted-later on.”- , To tho - Court: Witness said ho thought ho had driven Morrow to Aleredith’s office twice. Onco Was in Juno last, and lie thought the other, time was before tliafc. Ho had brought Alorrow into town at other times during the past 12 months. Ho visited Aleredith’s- offico with Alorrow twice. Later witness said he took Morrow to accused’s offico once. # ■ , Tho Court: “1 am going to get tho truth, if I. havo to adjourn tho case from timo to time.”- - Witness, after a good deal of thought, said lie had never driven Alorrow to Alereditli s office, lmt had let Alorrow. out at tho Premier Garage, when Alorrow had left for accuser, s office once, and on another occasion Alorrow had walked from tho office to witness’s house. The only occasion witness was at Aleredith s offico was in the month of June. Cross-examined, witness said cm the occasion he was rung up from Aleredith’s offico to-takes Alorrow homo, was that on which lie signed the agreement. Ho did not take Alorrow to tho office on that occasion. Ho could not say tho dato on which tho document was Court, witness said he could not tell tho date on which he witnessed tho agreement. It might have been some months before June. Detective Walker said he interviewed accused on 28th-Juno, 1926, at W_aiin a to, in connection with a transaction over’’potatoes with Alorrow. Accused admitted he had ’taken a quantity of potatoes from Alorrow’s farm on June 26, 1926. He ’ said they were his property, and were secured to him by an agreement with Alorrow, which was mado in October, 1925, before tlie potatoes wero planted. _He showed witness the agreement, winch was pro- j duced in Court. He gave witness a copy. Aleredith said it had been witnessed and signed on October 2, 1925. When asked how the agreement came into existence, Aleredith said ho had lent Alorrow £ls in October, in return for which Alorrow was to plant . the potatoes. In support of this, Aleredith produced a receipt signed by Morrow. Tho ink on the receipt was quite new, which Aleredith denied. Aleredith then asked witness to sign a paper giving, accused authority to take the potatoes. Witness said he would take the potatoes at his own risk, and lio would not give tho authority. Accused admitted he knew Pyno, Gould, Guinness had security on Alorrow’s crop, but said.it did not cover the potatoes. Alereditli said bo learned of tho instrument of security from the Alercantile Gazette. Alereditli gave a statement which witness read to the Court. Tho hour was -now jotting laic, ana the Court decided to adjourn the case till Alouday next. Air Emslio asked that accused be allowed out on his own recognisance, which tho Court refused, stating that he was an ordinary prisoner, and would be treated as such. , Accused was remanded till October H, at 10.15 a.m., bail being allowed accused of £IOO, and ono security of c ]')(), which was soon forthcoming. \ further charge was preferred mo,just Aleredith that, on or about Anril Ist, at AYillowbridgc, lie did willullv aid and abet ono William Garrett Alorrow, in fraudulently impairing an instrument by way of security over crops under the. Chattels and Transfer Act, 1924, between the said William Alorrow and I’yno, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., as grantee, by talcng bags of wheat, valued at £1.1)0, and comprised in tho said instrument of security, without tho authority of the said grantee. .. After * Hearing tho evidence, ; the Alagistrate dismissed tho information.