CHARGE OF FRAUD

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 148, 17 April 1940, Page 5

CHARGE OF FRAUD

FORGING AND UTTERING ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE Before Messrs J. D. Clark and C. Pipe, .LP's, at the Opotiki Police Court, a young man aged 20,, John Hudson, was charged with forging and uttering a cheque. The case was conducted on behalf of the police by Sergeant J. Lsbister. The Sergeant in outlining the circumstances of the case, told the Bench that the accused had been living with a friend at Waiohou, near Galatea. He stole a cheque belonging to Mr Te Pou which he filled in and signed with Te Pou's name. He then came to Opotiki in a taxi driven by a man named Allen. The cheque was presented to the Opotiki Hotel. Accused admitted the offence. Evidence for Prosecution. Evidence on behalf ot the prosecution was given by Mrs R. Mclhvraith daughter of the licensee of the Opotiki Hotel, who stated that she assisted in the management of the hotel. On the 23rd February, she remembered one of Mr Johnson's taxis pulling up at the hotel. Continuing witness said that the driver asked her if she could cash a cheque which he produced. Witness identified the cheque produced in court. This cheque, she stated, was for £10 and was drawn on the Union of Australia, Whakatane, in favour of Jimmie Tupe and was signed "J. W. Te Pou."' Witness took the cheque into the office and then -told the taxi driver she did not know the signature. Allen assured her the cheque was alright as he had cashed cheques signed by Te Pou before- She tli,en cashed the cheque and thought she gave Allen ten single pound notes. The cheque was liater returned by the bank endorsed "Signature unlike specimen held." Detailed Actions. Charles Sheaff, barman, employed

at the Opotiki Hotel, said that on '23rd February, he saw two men come out of a taxi. One of the men was the driver of the taxi. Witness did not know him but had seen him before and knew he was a taxi driver from Whakatane. He knew the other was a Hudson by sight. Both called for drinks and he served them. Hudson then tended a £10 cheque and witness picked it up and looked at the signature, Wi Te Pou. He then asked if the cheque was all right, and Allen told him ' they had cashed two in Whakatane the pre-< vious week. Witness asked why they did not cash that one in Whakatane,' they said they did not go into the town on the way over, as it .was several miles longer by that route. Evidence was given by Wi Te Pou, who said he had found that two cheques had been stolen from book. Taxi Driver's Account. Victor I. Allen, taxi driver, employed by C. Johnson, Whakatane, in evidence, said that he was engaged on 23rd February last to bring a man from Te Teko to Opotiki. He drove Hudson to Opotiki, and Hudson told him on the way over that he had been working for the Native Scheme at Waiohou. He told witness that he had received a cheque from one of the men on the scheme. Mrs Mcllwraith came and accepted the cheque from Hudson who A.vas in the passage. Mrs Mcllwraith then asked witness if the cheque was in order and he assured her it was, and she then went away with Hudson to the office. Mrs Mcllwraith and Mr SheafT were mistaken when they said it was witness'who cashed the cheque. Hudson paid him in the hotel and then again on the way to Opape for the extra trip. On t?h'<e 29th February, Mrs Mcllwraith communicated with the firm about the cheque and witness told her he would get in touch with Mr Te Pou. This he did and found out that the cheque was a forgery. On the 6th March he advised Mrs Mcllwraith to get in touch with the police. He did not get in touch with Hudson about the matter of the cheque. Investigation. Sergeant J. Isbister detailed The police investigations as a result of a complaint received from Mrs Mc- ' Ihvraith. He interviewed the accused at the police station. Accused told him he had received a cheque for £10 from Te Pou. He admitted presenting this cheque to Mrs Mcllwraith and she had cashed it. , Further inquiries wi-ro made and this statement w T as shown to be not true.- On 18th [March accused was again intei-viewed and a statement ; taken from him. Accused said that . he would tell the truth about the whole matter. In this statement (Continued at foot of next column)

accused said he was paid £5 by the Department two weeks before leaving Te place. When he left,-. Mrs Te Pou gave him £2 10s. Before leaving he took a cheque form and, filled it in and signed it. He only took one form from the book. Accused then came to Gpotiki wilh Allen and told Allen lhat he had a cheque to cash. He gave a cheque to Mrs Mcllwraith who gave him £10. As far as accused knew Allen did not touch the cheque. When asked if lie had anything to say in his own defence,, accused said "No."' Accused then pleaded guilty to both charges and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence..