FRENZIED FINANCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19768, 16 February 1927, Page 8

FRENZIED FINANCE

HEDGMAN ON TRIAL REVELATIONS OF A NOTEBOOK CASE TO GO TO JURY. r The sequel to a civil action determined at Wanganui last Novem- _* her came before the Wanganui. Supreme Court yesterday, when Frank Hedgman, an ex-constable, g was charged with falsifying a s document. g The trial was the upshot of trans- j* actions between James Stuart, formerly proprietor of the Aotca Buffet, Wan- c ganui, and Hedgman. Last year Stuart recovered by litigation money due to c him by Hedgman, and the latter’s ap- v pearance yesterday was the result of ” alleged falsifications discovered in a 1 notebook produced in support of his t claims at the original civil action. o AU-important Notebook. c The case now proceeding hinges | largely on Hedgman’s notebook, which was an exhibit in the Court. Also in ( evidence were photographic reprodue- ( tions of the pages on which the alleged £ alterations occur. These large scale , replicas were prepared by the Criminal j Investigation Department at Welling- , ton, and counsel and the jurors em- 1 ployed magnifying glasses in examining them. The. following jury was selected: G. H. Reynolds (foreman), A. W. Edwards, H. H. Couchman. Joseph Barney, Christopher Jarvis, Arthur William Toon, 11. A. Gallagher, Charles Booth, J. E. Sparks, Henry Davis, W. P. Newshani and C. A. Wainright. Mr W. A. Izard prosecuted, and accused was represented by Messrs T. M. Wilford and C. P. Brown. After evidence regarding the notebook had been tendered by Sergeant Dinnie, of the C.1.D., Wellington, and Mr Henry Morgan, Registrar of the Supreme Court at Wanganui, Mr Wilford opened his defence in his examination of the latter witness. Dates in Dispute. Producing the notebook in which 1925 is alleged to have been altered to 1921, with reference to an entry of a loan of £3OO by Hedgman to Stuart, Mr Wilford asked: “Have you ever, in the month of January, written in the wrong year, the year just past I” “Dozens of times,’’ replied Mr Morgan. Therefore, it should not surprise you at all if such a mistake had been made here. This was written in January, 1921. I suggest to you that the figure underneath is not a five, but a nought. Look at this round “o.’’ Look at it here. Did you ever see anyone join a five at the" bottom?—l would not like to say that “5” was joined at the bottom. Would you like to swear that it was not?—No. “Well, that is the point,” concluded counsel, emphatically. John James Stuart, the plaintiff in the civil action whence the present case arose, related his dealings with Hedgman, whom he met. shortly after coming to Wanganui in 1920. Ho was then proprietor of the Aotca Buffet, but sold out towards the end of the next year, placing his financial arrangements in the hands of Hedgman. He sent the accused money from time to time, but the, latter had never lent him a sum of £3OO, as was suggested by the notebook. Owed Him Nothing. Mr Wilford: What money did you owe Hedgman when you were making him monthly payments? —I owed him nothing. Witness strenuously denied that Hedgman had pressed him for regular payments on account of the amount he was owing him. Questioned regarding a conference with Hedgman and a solicitor, witness said there was no discussion. Mr Wilford: Very well, then. There must have been a silence. Now as a result of the silence between you three, a document was produced showing that you then owed Hedgman £l9O. (Laughter). Witness said Hedgman and the solicitor discussed matters, but he himself took no active part in the proceedings. Mr Wilford continued to examine the witness regarding his payments to Hedgman, suggesting that witness was repaving loans made by the latter, when His Honour said: “Surely this has already been decided by Mr Justice Reed, in the former case.” Mr Wilford: We,.do not admit that. His Honour: Wc are not going to bring that action over again here. Mr Wilford: My learned friend Mr Izard opened his case with that whole trial. New Facts. f His Honour: The matter has been before Mr Justice Reed twice, and he reached a certain decision. Mr Wilford: Since then new facts have come to light, and new letters. On these I am now examining. I am not the solicitor for this man, I am simply the barrister in this ease, and my responsibility is to show that the civil case is. not ended. Invited to explain his position to the jury, Stuart said: Gentlemen, I always used to send Hedgman £3O or £4O per month, but I never said anything to signify that I owed him money. He said he was needing money to finance his deals, but I didn’t know it was my money that he was speculating in. Evidence for the Crown was given by B. T. Bennett, Mrs M. Buller, Mrs Marshall, Mrs Penn, Mrs A. Potter, E. E. R. McKay, and F. W. Abbott. All these witnesses said they had bought household goods from Hedgman in 1925. Detective's Evidence. John Walsh, detective, said Hedgman joined the Police Force in 1913, and was stationed first at Wellington, next at Hawera, and then at Wanganui. From Wanganui he was transferred to Mohaka, and resigned from the force in 1924. The notebook produced was of the type issued to the Police Force, and was produced by the defence, in support of Hedgman’s statements, in the civil action heard last November. An entry in the notebook was then held to he evidence of loans of £3OO made Iby Hedgman to Stuart. Hedgman adI mitted that it looked as though the ! first entry of 1921 had been altered. ‘ When asked if he could account for

his writing the figures “.1925“ in 1921, he said he could not. The notebook contained the names of the witnesses just called with reference to dealings with Hedgman. With the names were lists of household goods, coinciding with those sold. In the same notebook were the Stuart entries, of 1921, on various pages. There were various dated entries bearing the dates 1924, 1925 and 1926. Some of these entries alluded to Stuart. Through Ordinary Eyes. Examining the photograph of the notebook page, Mr Wilford asked tho detective to look at the altered figures through the eyes of an ordinary man, not through police spectacles. Detective Walsh: I think it is a five. Mr Wilford: The Registrar, an intelligent man, would not swear that it was not a nought.—Perhaps he did not look at it. Mr Wilford: Oh, yes, he did! Counsel suggested that in both the altered dates the figures underneath were noughts. * Detective Walsh: It is the first nought T have seen with a tail on it. (Laughter). He considered the notebook was a most remarkable book. Mr Wilford: I don’t know about that, I have not seen yours. “Of course,” he went on, “the aim of every policeman is to see justice done.” “Thank you very much.” “You’re welcome.” (Laughter). Different Pencils. Mr Wilford said the defence would show that the- items were written in different pencils, and how the entries happened to be made in that manner, fn response to his invitation the detective cited the nature of the different entries. You had a talk with Hedgman about this matter?—Yes, I had an interview with him on December 16. ‘I suggest to you That this notebook is not tho usual police notebook.— These are supplied to detectives, sergeants, and constables doing inquiry work. Hedgman was doing inquiry work in Wellington. Mr Wilford challenged tho policemen in court to produce similar notebooks. Sergeant Sivy pt had one almost the same, but Constable Willetts haff a different type altogether. Detective Walsh produced one like Hedgman’s. Mr Wilford: Oh, but you came prepared. Defence Point Overruled. The Crown case having closed, Mr Wilford said he wished to submit argument to the judge, and the jury w accordingly dismissed until to-day. Accused’s counsel contended that no offence had been committed under the Statute. The entries in no way constituted a forgery as defined by the Statute. Supposing the alterations had been made—which they did not admit —the alteration was still not a forgery. Mr Justice Blackburn had said “telling a lie docs not become a forgery because it is reduced into writing.” He claimed that the Court had no right to send the case to the jury. Mr Izard, Crown Prosecutor, pointed out that the New Zealand definition of forgery was wider than the English definition. His Honour: That is quite so. I am quite satisfied that it is my clear duty to let this case go to the jury. The evidence for the defence will be heard this morning.