AN UNUSUAL CASE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 20, 18 October 1917, Page 7

AN UNUSUAL CASE

[ALLEGED FORGERY OF A WILI UTTERED TO PUBLIC TRUSTEE A somewhat singular case came before Mr. ,S. E.M'Carthy, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when a man named George Harris, a. baker, employed by MTParland Bros., was charged that on or about December 4, 1916, he did forge a document purporting to be a ■ rwill signed by ono John Smith, and did utter the same to the Public Trustee with intent that it be acted upon as genuine. Mr. P. S. K. Slacassey, of the Crown law Office, appeared lor the proseoution, ■and Mr. SI. Myers represented the accused. In, his opening remarks Mr. Macassey igaye an outline cf the case. He said that an , old man named John Smith had been "employed for some time by- Messrs. Jenkins and Mack as a.drainlayar. Smith and a friend, named Timothy O'Loughlin on the night of Juno 2D weiit to Godber's. fThey chatted as they ,went along , , and Smith made some remarks to O'Loughlin •that 'he had been to see Dr. Gilmer. and ■that he had advised him not to smoke. This caused O'Loughlin to remark, "Have • jou fixed up your paper yet?" (he term "paper" being understood between them to mean a. "will." Sniith replied, ir N T o; I must." They walked on together to the Basin. Reserve, where they, parted company, at 7.30 p.m., and Smith went to Jfrs. Lepper's house (the house of hie niece), at 28 Drunimond Street, where he resided. Mrs. lepper heard him outside and heard himfall doivn, and he expired shortly after 10. o'clock that, night.. On the following morning the accused Harris : Trent ■■to see O'Loughlin at tap Corporation yarde, and ho informed him that Sniith was dead, and asked him if ho thought there was a' will. . O'Loughlin then said "No. 'Only last night I spoke to him about it, and in answer to my question about a will he said,' ITo;''T must.'" About six months after Smith's death O'Loughlin.met Mr. md Mrs. Harris in the street, and they told him that the will had turned up, and that Mrs. Harris was the person in i.hose favour the will was made'out.'; On December 7,1916; the Public Trustee received a letter signed by "a man called Frederick leaser, together with a will purporting .to be written''ind signed by John Smith, tho deceased, and expressed ,to. be' attested by Frederick leaser, the .writer of the letter, and by another, witness, called' Morrison/. Mr.' Macussey read the .will and; the letter. .Continuing, Mr. Mac'assey.said the.Publio Trust _Oflice, lor the purpose of proving the will, made exhaustive inquiries as. io . the, two " attesting witnesses. They "were, however, unable to discover either of. them, and having regard to- the peculiar way in which the will came into the office, they .placed -the.'matter-.-in"the hands-of tho pplice at- the beginning of April', 1917. ; In the will the sum of .£SO ■»'ae bequeathed to the accused's "daughter, aged four..years, and the balance, .£7OO, was bequeathed to the wife of the accused: The deceased left him surviving, two daughters—Mrs. Powell .and Mrs. Harris—and three sons—Henry E. Smith, of Wellington, A?. S. Smith, of Frcmantle,' and FJ" A. Smith, of Subiacb, iWesterh Australia. There werealso two. children of the deceased's son. All these people were excluded from the will.' At the instigation of the police on May 3, 1917, the accused was written to and asked for a written repudiation of an olleged loan of ,£3OO that was stated by ' ~one of.the deceased's 6ous to have been made to Harris. The accused called and said ho was not good at. writing and jivould prefer to sign a printed form of declaration, instead of. writing the letter as,ked for. However, he agreed to write the'letter, and on May i repudiated the ■ loan, aud on July 30 the accused acknowledged .that letter and (two other 'letters io hare been written by him. % These ■were letters to the Public Trustee, ..con- ; senting to' the administration of the estate. When acknowledging th'ese letters , to be in his.handwriting accused volun- ,' teered ; the; information that his handwriting frequently varied. In the letter, of December 7 accompanying . the will there was a statement that the deceased lad requested that his will should not be handed 'in until six months after his death;-." ' ' ' ■ . ' • ,It' would-be shown couclusively, Macassey stated, by ex-Police Commissioner Dinnie, who was a noted expert on handwriting, that the writing of the .will, the signature of John Smith to the will, and the letter of December 7 signed by a man called Praser were, sot in the handwriting of th'o deceased, John' Smith, but were written i by Harris, as would be shown by a comparison of the letters admittedly written by; nim with the will and the letter forwarded by Praser to the Public. Trustee. Furthermore, the police and the Public Trust Office had made exhaustive inquirips as to the whereabouts of tho two witnesses to : the will, but without result.. They were not even known to O'Loughlin, the deceased's bospm friend for many years, or to any members of-tho'deceased's family, or to Mri Mack, his employer for many years. Apart from the similarity of. the ha-nd-wrjting there were seven identical mistakes in spelling, which occurred, in the letter accompanying.the will and in the letter which was written by accused ot

the dictation of Detective-Sergeant liawle, aiul'Giib in the will. . -Evidence in support of counsel's statement was then called. Charles Zachariah, District Manager of the Public Trust Office, gave . evidence as to receiving documents in connection with the will of the lute John Smith.One of the documents was a letter sent by tho accused's wife, who was a daughter of the deceased. Georgo Purnoll, in. charge of the Wills Branch of tho Public Trust Office, said he received the document concerning the will in January, 1917. Accused called at the olh'co in response k> a. letter respecting uu alleged loan from tho deceased to tho acoutsed of £'M. Tho accused was asked for a written , repudiation of the ulleged loan; accused stated lie was not good at writing, and asked if there was not a printed form he could, sign. On the followiug day (May i) accused wrote a letter disclaiming al knowledge of receiving a loan of J23QO from tho deceased. Caroline Lepper, 28 Drummond Street, said that the late John Smith wufc her uncle and ho, had resided at her house for about four years. About , four weeks before her uncle died accused and his wife came to eeo him. Accused ha< stated on more than one occasion tha ho was surprised that Air. Smith had so much money. Witness had told Harris she had found the bank-book with a credit of over .£7OO in it. To Sir.. Myers: Deceased had never informed her that he had made a will, Mrs. Harris was his favourite daughter; he appeared to be very fond of her and her children. Witness thought it likely that ueceased would leave his money to Mrs. Harris, as 6he had shown him considerable affection, and deceased had expressed a desire to help hor and her family. To Mr. Macassey: Witness first heard of the will in December last, when Mrs. Harris showed her u copy, which she stated had been received from the Public Trustee. William B. Lepper, managor of Macarthy'e brewery, said that during a conversation he ihad had with tho deceased, the latter led him to believe that he had made a wil] or had fixed up his affairs all right. On being shown a. letter by Mr. Macassey, witness said: "To the best of my belief the writing in the letter is that of tho late John Smith." ■ Oo you consider the writing in the will (produced) is that of John Smith's? — "I do not; the writing is not the same." To. Mr. Myers: Tho deceased was not. a very communicative man. He did not think O'Longhlin would have been told morp than witness and his wife. None of the members ■>{ the family except Mrs: Harris bothered about the welfare of the deceased. There was no justification for the statement that Harris had received a loan of '.£3OO. He was quite satisfied on that point.' Timothy O'Loughlin, carpenter. in the employ, of the City Corporation, said he knew John Smith for about 55 years. During , the last four years witness'.and Smith were together almost every evening. Smith had toU , him he had obtained a will form. Witness was with Smith the night he died. There was' a conversation regarding his health, and Smith said- the doctor had advi6ed him not to smoke much. It then occurred to ivitness that Smith's heart- was affected. Witness asked Smith if he had his "paper" fixed, and Smith 6aid "No, I must." By the word "paper" witness meant a will. That was all that was said about a will. They then walked towards the - Basin where they parted. On the following morning Harris-told liim.that his.old friend was dead, and tntness thongnt Harris asked him if he (witnea?) knew anything about. Smith leaving a will. About six ov eight njontns later he "mat Mr. and Mrs. Harris, and Mrs. Harris said, "Yon will be surprised that the will turned up," and she further stated it was all in her fatour. Witness had made inquiries regarding tho witnesses to the will, but :quld not discover who they were. Witness would have expected Smith to have told! him if he~had made a will when' he asked him on the night of June 20. To Mr. Myers: Harris was the first to ask witness if he knew Fraser and Morrison, the ,witneese3 to the will. That ;et 'him making: inquiries, and he told Harris afterwards that he could not find jut who they were. * To Mr. Macassey: He made inquiries cegarding Frnser and Morrison, because iie win;. .interested. ■■ He thought it was peculiar on the part of his old mate to ret 'vwo strangers to witness his will. Henry Ernest Smith, bricklayer, residing, in Adelaide Eoad. said he was a' >bn of the late John Smith. He never lieard Bis father epeak of having , made i will. He never heard of Fraser and Morrison, who were alleged to havo iigned his father's will. He tried to ind fliem, but failed. He first heard )f his father having left a will from lie accused. Ho could not say whether ihe signature "John Smith" on the will ivas in his father's handwriting or not. To Mr. Myers-. He (old Mr; Mienna in the Public Trust Office that the siglature on the will was in his father's iaudwriting. . , • At this stngo the- further hearing was idjolirned to 3 p.m.' on Friday. .