JUDGE STOPS CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume 97, Issue 15270, 21 June 1923, Page 2

JUDGE STOPS CASE.

UNUSUAL FORGERY CHARGES. 1V»IABEBE ROAD BOARD VOUCHERS WOODHAMS AND BROWN ACQUITTED. Charges of forging the name of W. Miller to a wages voucher of the Tamahere Road Board were preferred against Cecil Mark Brown (laic engineer to the board), Roderick Ryan (late quarry foreman to the board), and Charles Woodhams (lately in the employ of the board as a roadman), In the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday. The case for the Crown was conducted by Mr H. T.-Gillies, Mr J. F. Strang appearing for Brown and Woodhams, and Mr Meldrum for Ryan. The pases were taken separately. The three cases all arose out of the one set of circumstances. All three man, as previously mentioned, were in the employ of {he hoard at the same time. It was Brown's duty to pay the workmen, and he was accustomed to hand the money to Ryan to pay the men under him. On the occasion in Brown was unable to take the wages money to Ryan personally, and he sent it with a lorry-driver named Mathieson, who handed it over to . Ryan. Mathieson declared that Ryan counted the money when it was handed to him. , Ryan, however, stated that he did not do so, and that on discovering a shortage of £9 12s (the amount of Woodhams' pay for a fortnight) later, the same evening, he went along to Brown's house and informed him of the shortage. Ryan offered to leave his own wasres with Brown, but the latter would not allow him to do so. Woodhams asked Ryan repeatedly for his wages and interviewed Brown about the money. Later, according to Brown, Ryan came to him and stated that he had discovered the discrepancy and that everything was "0.K." Brown that on the night Ryan called on him and mentioned the shortage, he (Brown) told him that it was his (Ryan's) "funeral" and it was for him to make the money good. Ryan remarked, "well, I will not go short." Ryan, it was stated, later suggested that the name of W. Miller should be entered on the wages sheet for £9 12s in order to straighten the thing out. The name Miller was accordingly put on the pay-sheet by Brown, who said that at the time he did-not know whether there was such a man working for the board, and thought perhaps that Miller had been paid Woodhams' wages by mistake. Brown and Ryan each blamed the other for the • deficiency and the wrongful entry. Woodhams, it appears, in order to get his pay and believing that a mistake had been made by his money being handed to Miller, was induced to sign the name W. Miller to the voucher. During the oourse of his evidence against Brown, Ryan said that when the matter became known to the board and he and Brown were accused of forging the signature, Brown suggested that he (Ryan) should take the blame and that he (Brown) would

resign and sue Tom Clarkin, chairman . cl the board,'for £2OOO damages and . ghre Mm (Ryan) half. Brown said that when he became aware of the deficiency he did not inform 'the board, as he wanted to shield Woodhams, who was quite innocent in the matter. The jury returned a verdict of not gnftty in the case of Woodhams, and when Mr Strang was about to address

the jttry on Brown's behalf, his Honor, Mr Justice Herdman, remarked that • the only evidence against accused was that of Ryan, who, if prisoner was jtoond guilty, must be regarded as an accomplice. His Honor did not think, under the circumstances, that there was a case ito go forward and he asked the jury, without retiring, to return a verdict «f net guilty. This the jury did.

Tbe case against Ryan will be proieeeded with to-day.