MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2376, 4 February 1915, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

A PROMISCUOUS CHEQUE FORGER TRADESPEOPLE VICTIMISED. 'About the latter end of last month the detective force got on the track of a man who was suspected of wholesale and promiscuous forging of cheques, and of uttering the same to various '_ City tradespeople. A day prior to the departure of the Waimate for London ■ Detective Cameron arrested a trimmer named Charles Hector Dudley on board : that vessel, and charged him with theeo ... oftences. Yesterday Dudley appeared I- before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., in, the <=■ Magistrate's Court, to answer nine *' charges of'forging and uttering. Tho charges were as Follow:— GO On January 16, at .Wellington,

forging the, name of Guy H. Williams to a cheque for £5 10s., drawn on the Bank of New Zealand. Motueka, and uttering the same to Alexander Waddle; (2 and 3), on January 18, forging tho same mme to cheques for £10 and £15 drawn on the Bank of New Zealand, Nelson, and uttering them to John Leddy; (4, 5, and 6), on January 19, forging the same name to cheques for £37, £23 35., and £7 11s., and uttering the same to-Norman Wilfred Jaggar; (7) forging the same name to oheque for £3 Bs. 9d., and uttering tho same to Kathleen Murphy; (8), .forging tho same name to a cheque for £20, and uttering it to Frank Tait; (9), forging tho name of H. H. Beetham to a cheque for £10 13s. fid., and uttering tho same to Ernest George Hood. Inspector Hendrey explained that accused had intimated that he was going to plead guilty to each of the- charges, so that it would only be necessary to call one witness in respect to each charge. Alexander Waddle, a taxi-cab driver, gave evidence that accused had approached him and represented himself to be Guy H. Williams, a station-holder at Nelson. Accused asked for a number of blank cheques, which he en-, deavoured to oash. Dudley engaged tho car and handed a cheque for £5 10s. for it. The cheque came 'back a few days later marked "no account." Another witness, John Leddy, accountant in the employ of J. E. Fitzgerald, cycle and motor importer, said that accused had come to him at the shop and said that he wished to purchaeo a car. A model one was shown him, the purchase price of which was £650. Accused said he wished to purchase one like it, and when asked for a deposit of 25 per cent, of the purchase money asked for a blank cheque, which he signed G. H. Williams, and filled in for £150. Afterwards he asked witness to cash a cheque for £10, but the request waa refused. Accused: Was I under tho influence of drink at the time, for I don't remember going into your shop? Witness: I know you had gone to an hotel, but you appeared to be all rightj and appeared to know all about banking. To another witness, Norman Wilfred Jagger, salesman for Radcliife and Co., witness had represented himself as having sold a station up north, and was coming, down to race horses at Trentham. He asked for three blank cheques, and filled in. one for £37, another for £23 35., and tendered these for furniture valued at £59 35., which ho had selected. The third cheque he left open, saying that his wife would call in in a few days and select more furniture. He laid that he wished to purchase a piano, and witness took him along to tie Bristol Piano Company, where a piano was selected.. Some days later tho cheques were returned marked "No account." Frank Tait, employed by the Union Clothing Company, eaid that Dudley had come to his establishment, had been measured for a suit of clothes, and had purchased various other articles. For these he had tendered a cheque for £20, and' received £8 18s.- 7d. in change. Accused then left, directing tho' goods to be sent to the Empire Hotel. Questioned by accused, witness said that he (accused) was under the'influence of drink when ho made the purchases. Ernest George Hood, said that he was a draper, carrying on business iu Lambton Quay. Accused.had come to him and eaid that he wished to purchase some ladies' _ underclothing, adding that he did not wish to be seived by a lady shop assistant. Accused made a number of purchases and prof erred for them a cheque-for £10 !.3s. 6d., signed H. H. Beetham, and received in change £7 19s. 3d.

Guy Coldman Williams said he was a stationholder at a- station just ..out of Masterton. Hβ did not know accused, who had no right to use his signature. Hugh H. Beetham, owner of a station at Branoepeth, near.. Masterton, said that the accused had been working on his station for two years. Hβ had found him hard-working and trustworthy during that period. Acoused had no right to use witness's signature. Detective Cameron said that he arrested accused on January 26 on hoard the Waimatb. He had signed on that vessel on the previous day as a trimmer. When shown the cheques accused admitted that he had signed the cheques and had no bank account. Accused said he had been muddled with drink, and did not know why the shopkeepers had accepted the cheques. He was suffering from the effects of drink when he was arrested. Accused then pleaded guilty to all the charges, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. COMMITTED FOE TRIAL. The hearing of .the evidence in con« nectiou with, the charge against John Johnson, of assaulting Eric Coulson so as to bodily harm was concluded. Eric Coulson eaid he was a member of the Expeditionary Force. He remembered being in Willis Street on January 18 in company with Sergeant-Major Evans. Witness went into an hotel, and when he came out Evans was arguing with threeor four men, accused among them. Witness tried to pull his friend away from them, and as he did so accused came behind and struck witness on the point of the jaw, breaking it in two places. Witness gave no provocation whatever. Questioned by accused, witness said he thought Evane had struck an old man just before the assault occurred. The old man had had a knife in his hand, and used filthy language before Evans struck a blow. This concluded the evidence. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. OTHER CASES. Robert Smith was convicted and discharged for drunkenness, and fined £3, in default 21 days in gaol; for using obscene language. For drunkenness, Louis Burholt was fined 405., in default seven days in gaol, and a prohibition order was taken out against him for twelve nionthe. Five first offenders were doalt with.