SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2130, 4 March 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Ward.) FORGERY. The trial of Henry Charles Richards, for forgery, was continued. The following witnesses were called for the defence: — Major Croker produced two documents, which he said were signed by Griffin. Samuel Chin stated, with regard to one of the documents produced by the previous witness, that he asked Griffin to sign it; but in cross-examination, he admitted that he was not in a position to say that Griffin actually signed it; he (witness) having been drunk at the time. John Nicholson said that, since the hearing before the Resident Magistrate at Lawrence, he had examined several documents signed by Griffin, and judging by them he should say that the signature to the document produced [the one alleged to be forged] might have been written by Griffen. He was led to that conclusion from the fact that Griffin’s handwriting differed very much. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had bet that prisoner would not be convicted. G. B. Yause produced a bill of exchange drawn by himself and accepted by Griffin. The latter wrote the word “William,” but being unable to finish his name, asked witness to do so, which he did. On another occasion, wishing to get an acknowledgment of the payment of some money, he asked Griffin to give him a receipt. Griffin said he could not write, and asked witness to write his signature, which he did. Fanny Sutherland stated that, for twelve months, she was barmaid in the employ of Griffin, and knew his handwriting. It varied very much; sometimes being thick, and at others resembling a lady’s hand. The documents handed in by Major Croker were shown to her, and she said that one of them was in Griffin’s handwriting, and the other she thought was not. William M'Nicol said in the course of a conversation he had with Griffin about the middle of July last, the latter told him that he had got clear of Richards, and intended to keep dear of him. He also said that he had kept Richards’ family in meat for two or three years, and had never charged them. Witness understood that a “squaring up” had taken place between Richards and Griffin, but he did not understand that any money passed on that occasion. Mr Barton premised his address to the jury by advising them to disabuse their minds of any prejudices that might exist because the prisoner was admitted guilty of practising as a mining agent, and he afterwards defended the calling of those persons. He contended that the prisoner had no interest in forging the acquittance. He had acted for some years as Griffen’s legal adviser and amanuensis, and in those capacities did a large amount of work for him, and at one time was indebted to him in the sum of L6O, while he was only indebted to Griffin in the sum of L 27. It was singular, therefore, that the prisoner should produce an acquittance, if it were forged, which would deprive him of some L 34. To have done so would have been a most insane act. It would have been an act of idiocy to have presented it, he being one of the executors under Griffin’s will; and he would have been a double idiot to give notice that that document should be produced in court, and then swear that the signature to it was that of Griffin. The easier way of getting rid of the debt, if he so desired, would have been to have sworn that it was settled ; and it would have been impossible to prove to the contrary. After commenting at length on the evidence, and dwelling more particularly on that referring to the “ squaring up ” between Griffin and prisoner, the learned counsel suggested that the “ squaring up,” which was done in “black and white,” took the form of the document which it was attempted to make out was forged. The reason assigned by the prisoner for that “squaring up ” was this. In July last, Griffin being in difficulties, it was natural that he should desire that a “squaring up” should take place between them, to prevent the possibility of his being sued for meat supplied, in case it happened that circumstances compelled Griffin to hand his estate over to his creditors. Griffin wishing to give this simple release, while he was indebted to Richards in a larger sum (than the other owed him. The latter objected, whereupon Griffin agreed to put him down in his will for LIOO, which he did. He suggested also that the signature to the document alleged to be forged was signed by Griffin, who wrote his name over pencil marks, as it was shown he had done in a previous case ; or it had been written by prisoner at his request. Referring to the prisoner’s arrest, he did not hesitate to say that the whole thing was planned, and the prisoner had been persecuted. He called upon tho jury to give him every consideration. The case was one of (enormous doubt —he did not put it any higher—and to return a verdict of guilty under the circumstances would be a most extraordinary act, and one which would not add to the credit of the jury, [When the learned counsel resumed his seat, there were demonstrations of applause, which were speedily suppressed.] , ....

His Honor in summing up, impressed upon the jury that the simple question they had to decide was whether or not the prisoner had forged the signature to the document so much referred to. The facts, as undisputed, were as follows :—The prisoner and a man named Griffin appeared to have been on friendly terms, and the prisoner did a large amount of business for him. Griffin died about the 28th August last, and when the executors called upon him, af the deceased’s man of business, to deliver to them all his papers, prisoner produced the document, the signature of which was alleged to be forged, and stated“that it realoased him from all claims on behalf of the estate. The executors seemed to have noticed that there was some singularity in the signature, and they toook possession of it. That they had some doubt as to its genuineness, was proved by their subsequent act; fsr some three months afterwards they brought an action for the recovery of the sum of , L 27 against Richards. Before the trial of the case he gave notice to- the executors that he intended to put in a set-off for L6O for services rendered. By that he did not intend to rely on the document, but on the set-off, which might be accounted for that he thought the release would be disputed. That was a reasonable explanation. Being one of the executors under the will of Griffin, the debt he owed was discharged, and he might have relied on that defence ; but the complicated nature of his defence showed that he had a blissful innocence of the law. The prisoner came into fourt; he did not go into the questio; "ajMj set-off, but called upon the"' exfccP tors to produce the release, upon which he made his defence. This document he swore he saw Griffin ' sign, and also that he saw him initial it. Numerous remarks had been made upon that document, but really the case was one more for the judgment and eyesight of tho jury than upon the evidence. A large number of signatures of the deceased was put in, but he left it to the jury, as commonsense men, to say whether they could, under the circumstances, come to any. other conclusion than that asked by the Crown Prosecutor. He must point out to the jury that no one had beeu called who might be termed an expert in .writing, The jury were just as well able as thewitnesses to give an opinion on the matter, after a careful examination of the various signatures of Griffin. He must f point out that Dr. Halley, as a medical mah, had stated positively that Griffin was physically incapable of writing such a signature as that on the release.

The jury, after being absent about an hour and a half, returned a verdict of Guilty; sentence was deferred. Mr Barton intimated that he intended to call witnesses to speak as to the prisoner’s character. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock to-morrow morning.