The Globe. THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1248, 7 March 1878, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1878.

If there is one subject more than another upon which the Judges of the colony have commented from time to time, it is the readiness with which persons engaged in business take cheques without being acquainted either with the name or the presenter. To the facility thus offered for the commission of crime may bo traced the very large increase in our criminal calendars of cases of forgery, and it has taken all the repressive influence of severe sentences to keep it within bounds. Not only is this well known to the majority of the public, but time after time in their charges to the Grand Jury, as well as on other occasions, the Judges have pointed out the great cost' to the colony incurred by the offering, as it were, temptation to commit forgery. The very ease of its accomplishment, and, if the offender be an adept, the very good chance of getting off . scot free, have a great tendency to increase this class of crime very considerably, This being so, it would bo supposed that the members of the trading community would bo on the alert, and would use every proper precaution to prevent the possibility of forgery. In a young country like this, it is a matter of necessity that a large portion of its business should be transacted by means of cheques. To place uuuecessary or too rigid restrictions on the dealings with cheques would, therefore, bo unwise and impolitic. But it is only fair, and wo have a right to ask it, that com-mon-sense precautions should be taken by those dealing with cheques, to prevent the commission of crime and the burdening of the general community with the cost of prosecuting and maintaining the criminals- A case which took place in the Magistrate’s Court the other day goes far, however, to prove that, notwithstanding the warnings and cautions alike by the Judges and the public press, some tradesmen are just as credulously eager to take cheques, from no matter whom, even after making considerable enquiry and being unable to got any satisfactory information as to genuineness of thorn. Ordinarily, the names selected by the gentlemen who raise the wind in this manner are those of prominent and well-known colonists,

men of wealth anti standing, whoso possession of money is well known to all. In these cases a tradesman may plead some extenuating circumstances. But the case under notice is different. Amau writes a fictitious cheque, selecting a name at random. The cheque, written in a foolish moment is thrown under the grate, but somehow gets out into the street, and is found by a person. This person goes to a draper’s shop, purchases goods, and tenders the cheque in payment, endorsing it with a fictitious name. This is only another proof that, despite the many warnings, the practice of taking cheques from strangers, even after the failure of enquiry into their genuineness still continues. It appears, therefore, that it is useless to hope that a stop will be put to so prolific a means of filling our gaols. Shopkeepers and others do not appear to reflect that they are not the only ones who suffer by the delinquencies of This class of criminal. It is not a question of money to a private individual, but to the whole community, because the industry of the honest portion is taxed to provide means for safe custody, &c., of evil doers. Anything, therefore, that tends to increase this burden is a wrong on the community. It is hard to say how it is to be remedied, but some steps will have to be taken to put an end to what is nothing more nor less than offering temptation to commit crime.

Last evening the Star again returned to the question of the City Council in connection with the valuation roll. Our contemporary is of opinion, that instead of taking the course they have done, they should have objected to the valuation as a whole, and begin Jenovo. The reasons given for this opinion are that the proportion of the objections to the whole valuation is so large and the number of ratepayers to be subjected to the proceedings of the Assessment Court so many, and the chances of success so dubious, that the Star is of opinion that the wiser course would have been to throw the whole assessment over and begin again. Now the number of objections to the valuation is one-sixth of the whole —a very small proportion after all —and in all probability many will accept the valuation placed on their property by the Council, so the number may be considerably reduced. As to the chances of success, it should bo remembered that in most cases the appeals lodged by the Council are against reductions below values settled by the Magistrate on appeal last year, and the Council very naturally conclude that property has not fallen below the value of last year. As to the objection that the course taken by the Council will inconvenience a large number of gentlemen, we have but to say that private convenience must give way to the general good. Had the whole of the valuation been objected to. the city would have been put to considerable expense, and there would have been great delay in striking the rate. Nor will the Council have to face the “ monstrous position” of taking 592 of their constituents into the “ arena of the Police Court,” for they are doing nothing of the kind. The assertion of the 'Star looks like a paltry attempt to mislead the public. The “ Police Court ” and the “ Assessment Court” are two very different tribunals. To figure in the former may sometimes bring disgrace, but to appear in the latter, never. This is a sample of the expedients to which our contemporary is reduced in order to bolster up his case.