A CHARGE OF FORGERY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9059, 15 October 1907, Page 4

A CHARGE OF FORGERY.

: * ACCUSED CpMMITTED FOR TRIAL. A promissory note that figured largely i^i a civil action at the Slagzstrate's Court tecently was the basis of a criminal charge heard by Mr V. Gr. Day, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. John Henry Ireson and Grace Huteheson were charged with having forged the signature of Daniel Huteheson. Mr Hunt appeared for Ireson, and ■Mr Donnelly for Gjrace Hutcheson. Frank D. Kesteven, commission agent, said that on July 13 the female .accused went to his office and asked for a loan of £20 and offered to give a bill of sale, but he replied that the amount was large and it would be necessary to have her husband's signature affixed to the bill. She said " that will be all right," and requested him to send the bill to her house to be signed. The male acused called at witness's office on July 14, asking him to send the money to Mrs Hutcheson. On July 15 Ireson called, and' again asked him to send the money. Ireson did not say that he was Hutcheson, but witness understood him to be the female 1 accused's husband. The bill of sale produced was the one the accused signed. It was not torn when it, was signed. Thomas Herbert Langford, clerk in the employ of F. D. Kesteven, stated that he drafted the bill of sale and made out the .promissory note. Ireson went, into the office on July 15, and in reply to a question said that he waft Hutclieson. Witness gave him the bill and the notes, and he took them away. Later in the day witness proceeded to Mrs Hutcheson's house with a cheque for £17. When he reached the house he found that Ireson had not arrived with the bill of sale. "When Ireeon aprived Mrs Hutcheson said to him : " Hurry up, Dan, or you will be late for work." Ireeon then produced the bill of sale and the note, and the two accused signed them, Mrs. Hutcheson signing first. Ireson signed the documents "Daniel Hutcheeon." F. B. Hughes said that Ireson had worked for Intnl. but had been dismissed on account of his implication in a forgery case. Ireson in July mentioned a bill of sale, and later he stated that he had obtained one over a piano, and furniture, and had deposed of it to a "Jew " for cash. Witness said that, he thought it was- hard on the Jew, and Ireeon replied: "The Jew can go to blazes," or words to that effect. Mr Donnelly objected to the husband of^ the fen:aTe accused being called. He said that' Ch use 5 of the Evidence Act of 1905 made it impossible for him to give evidence unless his wife consented, and ©he did not consent. . Mr Day said that the evidence would ateo be against Treson. There had never been an interpretation of the last paragraph o f the clause, and he would admit the evidence. Daniel Hutcheson, , the htisbandvof the female accused, said that the signatures on the bill of sale arid on the promissory note were not his. He did not authorise anybody to sign them in his. name Treeon had been boarding at his house for some time. Duncan M'Gregor, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, said that on July 18 John Henry Treson opened an account with the bank and lodged £14. By a compai-ison of signatures made by Ireson he could identify the accused with the man who opened the account. The accused reserved their defence arid were committed for trial. Bail was allowed, in Ireeon'e case on one surety of £100 and in that of the female accused in her own recognisances.