MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1427, 8 December 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—TUESDA T. (Before Mr H. O. S. Baddeley, B.M) ALLEGED FORDING AND DXTKRINO. William Hall Zonoh was charged on information—(l) with having forged a certain document, to wit, a promissory note, (2) with having uttered the same knowing •t to have been forged.—Sergeant Felton prosecuted, and Mr Stringer appeared for the accused.—The folluwing evidence was taken—Detective O’Connor said : Arrested the accused on Nov 19 at Christchurch. Charged him with forging the name of F. B. Brine to a bill for £25 and with discounting the same with A. E. Potts and Co, Accused said, “ I did not do it.” He also said “ That’s a ruffian.” Witness asked “who”and Zonoh replied “Brine. He did not tell you anything about the other three bills he gave me.” As they were going on to the railway station accused said the bill was paid.—B. McOren ; manager of branch of Bank of New Zealand at Ashburton, said ; The promissory note (produced marked A) was received in the course of business. It is for £25 for three mouths, payable to W; H. Zouch. and purporting to he signed by F. B. Brine. The signature in witness’s opinion was a forgery. Was well acquainted with Bone’s signature. Had compared the signature on the promissory note with Brine’s r ~itbenticated signature. .Vould have no hesitation in dishonoring the P.N. as a forgery.—By Mr Stringer ; Would have dishonored it on the ground of the signature being very much unlike in some salient points. Had dishonored cheques on a similar ground now and again, and it had sometimes turned ont that they had be.-n drawn by the persons by wh'>m they purported to ba drawn la such oases, however, witness dishonored them, while under the fall belief that they- ' were signed by the proper parties, because 1 they were so dissimilar to the specimen signs ure. If a man happened to ba 1 intoxicated while signing a cheque it might 1 give rise to a dissimilar ty in the signature which would justifv the cheque 1 being dishonored. There were three irregularities in the P.N. alleged to have been forged. The signature was labored and not wit’en with the freedom with

which Brine signed his name, the points to the “Bs” were over done, and the formatou of the “ B ” In the surname was not at all like that adopted by Brine.— A. H. Shury, manager of the Union Bank of Australia at Ashburton, said : In the coarse of business received a promisory note for £25 signed “ F. B. Brine ” (produced marked B). Had had experience with signatures. On comparing the signatures ou exhibits A and B would have no hesitation in pronouncing that on exhibit A to be not genuine. Witness specified the points in which the signatures were unlike. —F. B Brine, at present a milkman, residing at Hampstead, said : Bad a transac t <n with the accused about the end of August or the beginning of September. Went to him to see if he could procure wituess the loan of soma money. Got some money an 1 gave Z >uch a P. N. for £25. That note produced was the one witness gave. Gave a lien on his piano as security. This was the first transaction witness had with Zouch that came to a “ head.” A few days previously witness saw Zouch about a loan. vVauted a lorn and mads out a promissory note for £23 ss, payable at six months. There was no data entered on the note. Z moh had no tooney himself to advance, bat he was going down to Christchurch and said he would try and got the note discounted When he came back in a day or two he said he had not been able to get it done as nobody would discount at six months, it being too long. Did not get the bill back. It was than arranged that witness shou d give another P. N. fo- £25 (note referred to, marked B) When he left Z mob’s office forgot to take away the P N for £23 5i Never signed any other P N’s. nor had any other transactions with W. H. Zbucb. The signature on the note marked A was not witness’s. It was a forgery. The first intim&'ion he had of it was when the note was shown to him by Me McOwon Knew of no one else of the nameof Brine in this district. Had been in Ashburton county for over two years. -By 4lr Stringer : Had only signed iwo P.N’s, in favor of Z inch one for £23 5s (which ought to have been destroyed) and the other for £26 (the one marked B) Signed the. bill for £23 5a a few days prior to September 8. Gave a bill of sale over his piano as security for thu £25. Signed the bill in Zonch’s office about midday. Another man was there, a b aoksmith

named Berg, who witnessed the siznatare of witness to the bill of sale. The P.Nand the bill of sale were not signed on the same day, bat Berg was there on both □coasi <ns. Had been in Zouoh’s office several times trying to get more money, but did not do so and no more writing passed between them. Zonch had, however, taken him to Sir Bird who had given him £8 on the security of a gun and buggy. Was never asked by Z mch to give his name to an accommodation bill. Could not see very well to write without his spectacles. Did not recollect ever writing in, Zouoh’s office without his sptclaoles; could say positively that he had not, James Charles, farmer at Hinds, said that he was in company with Z)uch in Christchurch on October 3.4iblast. Went with Zouch to Potts’ office. Zouch asked witness to endorse two bills for him, he being a stranger to Mr Potts. Witness did so. One of the bills was for £26 and purporting to be drawn by F. B. Brine, That was witness’s signature on back of bill marked A. Witness saw Zonch also endorse the bills. Zouch and Potts both ask ;d witness if ha knew Brine, ‘and witness replied that he knew him when stationmaster at the Hinds.— A. B. P otts, accountant, Christchurch, remembered W. H. Zouch and J. Charles coming to his place of business on Octoher 14th. Zouch wanted to discount certain bllla. Bill marked A was one. The bill produced was endorsed by Zouch and Charles in witness’* presence. Witness discounted the bills, and handed the proceeds part y to Wilding and Lewis, on behalf of Zouch, and partly to Zouch Prior to the bills falling due, sent notices to the endorsers and the maker of the bill. After that Zouch came to witness and wanted to take up the bill. He asked witness if notice had keen sent to those connected with the bill. Wit'ess said “ Yea.” Did not think Zouch made any remark. Zouch handed witness £25, and they went together to witness’s bankers for the purpose of retiring the bill, which had been sent to Ashburton, where it was payable,—Sergeant Felton gave evidence to the effect that during the twelve years be had been stationed in Ashburton he knew of no other person named F. B. Brine.—This was the case for the prosecution.—The accused reserved his defence*, and was c mmltted for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court to be held at Christchuroh, bail being allowed, accused in bis own recognisance of £3CO and two sureties of £l5O eich. The Coart then cose.