FORGED A POSTAL FORM NOTIFYING CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18890, 15 October 1929, Page 1

FORGED A POSTAL FORM NOTIFYING CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

CHARGE PREFERRED AGAINST TWO PEOPLE.

The forging: of ar postal form notifying change of address resulted in William Clarence Washington and Elsie Eileen Wilson appearing in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M. They were charged that, on August 10, they notified a change of address, purporting to _be signed by Kathleen Veronica Washington, with the intent that it be acted upon as genuine. Mr Sargent appeared for the accused. “ Accused were before the Court last Saturday, and it was indicated that the case was not of a serious nature,” said Mr Sargent. “ The case was adjourned in order to find some means of reducing it from an indictable charge.” Mr Sargent suggested that the charge should be reduced under Section 124 of the Post and Telegraph Act, 1928. This was agreed to by Chief-De-tective Carroll. The charge was reduced to one of obtaining a postal packet by a false pretence. In outlining the case, the chief detective said that Washington and his wife were living together until April last, when they separated. However, divorce proceedings were not started until after the offence was committed. Mrs Washington notified the post office officials of a change of address. Accused then went to the post office and forged another form of change of address, the result being that Mrs Washington’s letters went to her husband. The Magistrate: What was the-in-tent? Chief-Detective Carroll said that he did not know of any intent. Accused’s reason was a business one. “ No Fraudulent Intent.” Mr Sargent, in addressing the Court, said that it was not a case of a serious nature. Washington had been employed in the railways. He wished to conduct a small business in the suburbs, but civil servants were not allowed to do so, therefore the business had been carried on under his wife’s name. There was no fraudulent intent, and if there had not been feeling between the husband and wife, there would have been no prosecution. “ There are a large number of these forms used.” added Mr Sargent, 44 and vet there is no warning on them as to who is to sign them. I would ask your Worship to take into account the fact that these people were arrested in Wellington at midday last Thursday, and were in gaol for thirty-six hours. They then obtained bail and paid their own boat fare to Christchurch. They have already had that punishment. There is also the possibility that Washington mav lose his position in Wellington.” The Magistrate: What has the woman to do with the case? The < hief-Detective said that she had been the co-respondent in the divorce proceedings. She actually signed the document, but Washington knew all about it. The Magistrate said that lie could not treat the matter as lightly as suggested by counsel. It happened that no harm was done, but it was difficult to say what would have happened if the busi- * ness had been a flourishing one. Washington was fined £5 and costs, and Wilson was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months.