SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 532, 23 September 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 23.

[Before His Honor Sir Or. A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice, and a Common Jury.]

His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10 o'clock.

I'ot'.oiNG a Bank Cheque.— David George Smaile was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with having forged and uttered a cheque drawn upon tho Bank of Australasia in Grahamstown for £3 Us. 6d., purporting to be Bigned by the firm of Percy Grreen and Co.—The facts of the case will appear from the following evidence.—Mr. J. M. Lennox, a land and estate agent, deposed that ho received the cheque from the prisoner in payment of rent that was due from him to a Mr. Rutherford. The wituess told the prisoner that if there was lunds in the bank to meet the cheque, he would give the prisoner credit for the amount. It was contemplated at the time to take proceedings for the I rent due, as his client had been put off a great many times. The cheque was paid into the witness's account at the Union Bank. —iho witness in cross-oiamination by the prisoner said that he received the cheque from the prisoner subject to there being funds to meet it in the name of the persons who drew it. The prisoner said that he bad had a great many transactions with the firm named on the cheque, and had found them to be all right. Witness would not have taken the cheque from the prisoner unless he had believed it to be a genuine cheque. The amount due from the prisoner was subsequently obtained in another way.—The witness, in reexamination by Mr. BrookfieW, said that by witness taking the cheque tho prisoner received several days' grace. Summary proceedings wore to have been taken against the prisoner, but, the form .f them had not been decided. It had not been decided wliether a distraint should bo put in or what other proceedings should be taken.—Cleveland Percy Green deposed that there was no such lirin as Percy Green and Co., that ho knew of. He knew no other Percy Green. Never heard of the firm subscribed to the cheque.—ln reexamination by the prisoner, the witness said that the prisoner had made some proposals to him about carrying on business together iv that name, but. there was never such a form in existence that he knew of. Had never signed the cheque produced, nor had given prisoner any authority to u?e his name. The cheque purported to be drawn by « firm at Turaru. Witness knew of no linn by that name at Tararu. —Detective Jeffrey was examined, and deposed lh.it he had made enquiries at Tararu, but there was no such firm there carrying on business in the name signed to the cheque.— Detective Murphy deposed that he had made enquiries over the whole of the Thames goldfields, and could find no such firm as Percy Green and Company. Witness had been seven years and a half in tho police, aud three years and a half <x detective. He never heard of such a firm as Percy Green and

.'ompiiny. —The prisoner made a long address to the jury in his defence. Ho said that there was no fraud effected. There were, as admitted by Gfreen, negotiations to enter business under this Btyle and title. In fact, although the arrangements for the partnership wore not complete, the business had commenced. The jury would recollect that tho cheque was giveu subject to the means being found to meet it, aud his anticipation of tho partnership being completed. Thovo win no intention whatever to de'raud. —Tho prisoner made a vehement appeal to tho jury to tuke into consideration the probability of a person at his age (47) havitig a large family, and having filled the highest public offices.—His Honor summed up the evidence, and told the jury that the putting forth knowingly of any fraudulent document was an uttering, and if the document were subscribed by a fictitious name signed by tho prisoner, thou ho was guilty of forgery. But they were tho judges of the facts which had been deposed in evidence.—The jury, after a sho.t deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of uttering a forged document with iutont to defraud. —His Honor said the prisoner had been found guilty of five distinct charges of fraud by forged documents, two of which wero forgeries by the prisoner, and involving some legal points, and in respect of which the Court passed no judgment, as those points of law would be referred for decision to the Court of Appeal. But for the threo other casos, in respect of which there was no doubt, the Court would pass sentence. His Honor sentenced tho prisoner to four years' penal servitude for each offence, the sentences to be concurrent.

This concludes the criminal session,