MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 350, 27 July 1875, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

LYTTELTON. Saturday, July 24.

(Before W. Donald,_Esq, R.M., and J. G

Bouse, Esq., J.P.)

Forgery.—George Messiter was charged •with this offence. Thomas Merson was the prosecutor. Sergeant Maguire gave evidence as to the arrest. W. H. Byes was called to prove that the receipt produced in court was the one produced in court as an offset in the case Merson v Messiter. Thomas Merson deposed to having had transactions with Mrs Messiter, the wife of accused, on December 31st, 1872. Received £lO from her in his own shop ; that he sued the prisoner on the 22nd of this month for £l4 16s. The prisoner disputed the claim, and he only obtained judgment for £4 lbs, in consequence of the receipt produced. He swore that the receipt produced was the one he gave Mrs Messiter in 1872. The 1872 had been altered to 1874. He swore that the 4 was not like the one he usually made. The case was then adjourned till next day. Monday, July 26. [Before W. Donald, Esq, B.M.J Forgery.—The adjourned case against Messiter was again proceeded with. Mr Merson was examined at some length with reference to the transaction, but nothing further was elicited. Dr McDonald was next examined as to the health of Mrs Messiter previous to her death. John Smith Willcox, sworn, said he was a commission agent, residing in Lyttelton, and was experienced in accounts. He was asked to examine the document produced, which purports to be a receipt from Mr Merson to Mrs Messiter. He observed the date Dec. 31st, 1874, on it. It appeared that the paper had been scratched or rubbed after the figure seven. He had examined it under a magnifying glass and it appeared that the four has been put in since it was scraped or rubbed. By Mr Nalder—He could not swear that a figure has been erased and another substituted. The accused was a bad writer. He could not perceive any difference either in the ink or the way in which the figure four had been formed from the other writing in the receipt. There was a similarity in the fours in the bills produced and that alleged to have been altered. Mr Nalder addressed the Bench, stating that the whole evidence was most inconclusive, particularly Mr Merson's. In the civil case it became a mere matter of Mr Merson swearing one thing and Mr Messiter another. The entries in the books were all given I to Mrs Messiter, and the whole of the business transactions were carried on with her; accused distinctly stated that he found the receipt amongst his wife's papers, and there was no evidence that if the receipt was altered Mr Messiter did it, as it was in the charge of his wife. Mr Merson did not notice anything wrong in the receipi till the Bench noticed an alteration in it. it was proved by the other receipts produced that Mr Merson did make similar fours, there was no doubt that Mr Merson gave the receipt, but even if he did not and there had been a forgery, there was nothing to connect Mr Messiter with it, as he found the paper amongst otherß belonging to his wife after her death. He (Mr Nalder) would ask the Bench to at once dismiss the case. The Bench said that they had determined to send the case for trial, but bail would be ac cepted. Accused on being asked said he had nothing more to say than to reiterate that he had found the receipt produced amongst his wife's papers. The accused was then committed for trial, bail being accepted in two sureties for £SO each, and accused in £IOO.