NOT GUILTY
HEDGEMAN ACQUITTED BETRIAL BY SUPREME COURT. At the Wanganui Supremo Court yesterday, before Mr Justice Ostler. Frank Hedgeman appeared for retrial charged with falsifying entries in a document regarding his transactions with John James Stuart. The following jury was empanelled: John Boyd (foreman), P. G. Alabaster, E. F. Brider, B. L. Christiansen, P. Horne, N. T. Kendall, J. H. Melton, A. Moreland, E. C. Morgan, E. Prince, E. Scarfe and F. Williams Mr W. A. Izard conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr T. M. Wilford, with him Mr C. P. Brown, appeared for the accused.
In Iho course of lengthy evidence. John James Stuart gave an account of his transactions with Hedgeman after he sold his business in Wanganui This included the payment of £3OO deposit on a house. He had never given the accused any promissory notes prior to December 7, 1921, as was alleged by the defence. When he left he gave him £4O and a p.n. for £lOO he had lifted from the bank to pay some accounts. He had frequently sent money to Hedgeman to keep for him and this amounted to £790. He had heard accused say in a previous case that alterations had been made to entries in a brown note book. Witness denied receiving cash advances of £7O or £BO from accused. The only advances he had received had been small ones. To Mr Wilford: He did not pay Hedgman £5O in January. 1924, as shown in the note-book. The money was for November and December. Business Dealings. Evidence of small business transactions with the accused was given by Benjamin Thomas Bennett, auctioneer; Maud Emily Buller, Kathleen Marshall, Jane Penn, Clarice Potter, married women; Lewis Robert McKay and Frederick William Abbott. Detective J. Walsh said the accused was once a member of the New Zealand Police Force, and was stationed in Wanganui from 1920 to 1923. The note-book produced in Court was identical with those issued to the police and contained particulars of various transactions. The book was produced by the accused during the course of a civil action between Stuart and Hedgeman in 1926. Witness had examined the note-book carefully, and it contained the names of the seven previous witnesses with regard to sales of household goods. The earliest entries apart from the references to Stuart in 1921, were dated 1924. There were records of money allegedly advanced to Stuart between January 7 and July 16, 1921, and in several of these entries there appeared to have been alterations made to both dates and amounts. Some of the 1921 entries were in the middle of the book between references to dealings in 1924 and 1925. Witness did not know any definite police entries in the book, although there was a reference to a license at Wairoa which might be relative to police matters. To Mr Wilford: He frequently attended civil sittings of the Court, but he was in Court on the day of the Stuart v. Hedgeman case only because he looked in while passing by. Counsel and Detective. Mr Wilford: Wasn’t it the case, that you were asked to attend the Court to see if you could ‘‘put one over” the ex-policeman 1 Witness: No, it was not. His Honour: This is not fair, Air Wilford. You must know that Mr Justice Reed instructed that the papers were to be handed to the police. Mr Wilford: Has there nut been some ill-feeling between the accused and you?
Witness: No, Mr Wilford. I worked in Wellington with Hedgeman. 1 was in the same station with him, and I have* never had any quarrel with him, either while he was in the Force or since he has left.
Air Wilford put it to Detective Walsh that the 1921 entries were the only ones in the note book for years, then it was laid aside, and the accused did not use the book again until he went into the crockery business. This evidence closed the Crown case.
Air Wilford quoted legal authority to support a submission that the notebook was not a false document under the meaning of the Act. The entries were memoranda in a private notebook. Counsel asked His Honour to reserve this point. ”1 have been doubting whether this is a case of forgery or not,’ ’ replied his honour, ‘‘and I certainly think the point is one which I should reserve for the Court of Appeal. If the jury finds the accused guilty he will be remanded until the decision of the Court of Appeal is made known.” In his address to the jury, Mr Izard referred to the allegation that there had been ill-feeling between Detective Walsh and the accused. The only evidence on this point was that of the detective, who said there had been no ill-feeling, and this evidence the jury ; must believe. The jury would have to treat the case on the grounds that if the entries were falsely made they were forgeries and a verdict of guilty would have to be brought in. The point raised by Mr Wilford was no concern of the jury. Address for the Defence. Before he commenced his address, Air Wilford thanked Mr Izard for the very fair and impartial manner in which he had conducted the case. There was not a tittle of evidence for the Crown case, and it was the business of the Crown to prove without a doubt that the prisoner was guilty. In the opinion of counsel there was not enough evidence on which to hang a sparrow. .Stuart’s evidence was misleading, and counsel asked the jury to disregard his oath entirely and to come to a conclusion on the documents solely. Nothing he could say would be strong enough to express the unsaitsfactory nature of the Crown case. ‘‘l often think too much is expected of juries in criminal cases when are expected to follow involved documents,” said his Honour. In the case before them, happily, most of the documentary evidence could be disregarded. A document was false when the date was falsified and when this alteration was material. If the jury found the accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, that verdict would be subject to a decision of the Court of Appeal on the point of law. If the receipt, which Detective AValsh had sworn was in the accused’s handwrit-
ing was genuine, then the entries were false. The jury retired at 5.40 p.m. and returned at 8.35 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19270518.2.61
Bibliographic details
Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19843, 18 May 1927, Page 8
Word Count
1,085NOT GUILTY Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19843, 18 May 1927, Page 8
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the Wanganui Chronicle. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.