SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1263, 5 April 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Thursday, April 4. POBGERY. The following evidence was given in this case aft a- we went to press yesterday:— John Simmonds was indicted for having on the 20th March forged and uttered a cheque on the Union Bank of Australia for -£39. A count charged the prisoner with having feloniously altered a cheque from <£3 to .£39, and then uttered the same. Constable Lamb, stationed at Little Eiver, deposed to arresting the prisoner on the charge of forgery and uttering. When putting him in the lock-up the prisoner told him that he had got the driver of the Christchurch and Akaroa coach to change a .£ls cheque for him, and that he had brought him a ,£3 cheque amongst other change. Prisoner said he had added it to the cheque for devilment. Witness understood him to mean the figure on the cheque which had been added. Mr Joynt addressed tbe Court, contending that tbe indictment could not be sustained on the first and second counts, as he should submit that the cheque was not a cheque as purporting for .£39, hence the charge would fail. Some argument ensued, and ultimately His Honor said that the jury would have to consider first whether the prisoner in altering the cheque had done so with an intention to defraud, and they would also have to answer specifically the following question, viz Has the cheque as altered such a resemblance to a cheque for .£39 as renders it likely to deceive an ordinary person.” If they found the prisoner guilty the point raised by Mr Joynt would he reserved for consideration by the Court of Appeal. Would Mr Joynt be satisfied if tbe jury were directed and asked the question as stated. Mr Joynt was perfectly satisfied as to tbe course proposed by bis Honor, and he would not address tbe jury. Mr Duncan also declined to address the jury. His Honor then briefly summed up, reading over a portion of the evidence in the case, suggesting that as to the first two counts (charging with forgery and uttering a cheque for .£39) the, jury should find the prisoner not guilty. On the third and fourth counts if they believed that the prisoner bad wilfully and feloniously altered the cheque, they would have to find him guilty. If, on the other hand, they did not do so, then they would have to acquit the prisoner entirely. If they found him guilty on the third and fourth counts, he would get thorn also to answer specifically the question he had read to them, so that the case would go up to the Court of Appeal with the question fairly raised. Of course, if the prisoner was found guilty, the question of law would be reserved for argument before tbe Court of Appeal.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict. On returning into Court, the jury found a verdict of “ Not Guilty ” on the first and second counts, and “ Guilty ” on the third and fourth counts. To the question as put by his Honor, the jury returned an answer in the negative. On the application of Mr Joynt, his Honor entered the answer and question on his notes, and also agreed to reserve the question of law fop consideration at the Court of Appeal. In answer to Mr Joynt, His Honor said that he would accept bail for prisoner’s appearance: himself in =2IOO, and two sureties of =250 each. The prisoner said be was a stranger here, and could not get the sureties required. FORGERY AND U'J'TERII'TG. Amos James Tudball was indicted for haying on 27tb November last, whilst having in his custody a bill of exchange for .£2OO, feloniously forged the acceptance of one Martin Burns to the said bill of exchange. A second count charged the prisoner with having uttered the said bill of exchange, knowing the acceptance to it to be forged. The case for the Crown was that the prisoner handed a bill of exchange for £2OO purporting t« be accepted by Martin Burns for discount to the Managor'of the Bank of Australasia, This was done, but some time afterwards it was discovered that the acceptance of Martin Burns to the bill thus discounted by the prisoner'was a forgery, Burns distinctly denying over having accepted a bill to the amount, or authorised any one to do so on his behalf. The signature purporting to be that of M. Burns was declared by him to be a forgery. In support of the case for the Crowa, Mr Duncan called Messrs M. Buy ns and T. Ingram (Manager of the Bank of Australasia.) The latter gqntlgman proved the. presentation by the prisoner of a bill for J)2(io made payable at the Bank of i s lcw Zealand for discoubt- The bill was discounted, the prisoner assuring Mr Ingram that Burns was a man of means and a miser and would pay (ho hill at maturity. Mr Izard call,e.d the following evidence for the defence;— . James Morris—l was clerk in the employ of Mr Tudball and kept bis books. I have seen

the bill produced before. I wrote the signature ‘ Martin Burns” to the acceptance. I wrote the whole of the acceptance. The prisoner was iu the habit of leaving blank cheques and bills for me to fill up as I required. The acceptance iu question was left by Mr Tudball with me to obtain Burns’signature. I knew perfectly well that Burns had a decided objection to put dag his name to paper, and I know he would not do it. I tilled up the acceptance myself, and Tudball did not know that I had done it till some considerable time after I had filled up the bill. I think 1 signed the bill on the 28th November. At any rate, the day it was given to me by Tudball. After I bad signed it I enclosed the bill in an envelope with several others, and placed it in the discount box at the Bank. Tudball did not know the hill was forged until the day he filed his schedule. I do not remember the date. [Mr Izai’d put in a “ Gazette” notice of Tudball filing on March 7th,] I am perfectly certain that Tudball knew nothing of the forged bill. I have been in prison for debt. I have been in there for three weeks, but have bad no conversation whatever with Mr Tudball. I beard of Tudball’s arrest on tbe day I was arrested myself, on my way to Lyttelton. On the 28th of last month I wrote a letter to Constable Moutray, asking him to call at the gaol, as I wanted to give myself up for forgery. I saw Tudball in gaol, hut never had any conversation with Tudball.

Cross-examined by Mr Duncan —I bad a letter from Tudball, which was banded to mo by Mr Joynt. The letter has been destroyed. It said that Tudball required my assistance in getting matters arranged for his bankruptcy, and that I should file my schedule so that I could come out and help him. I have bad two conversations with Mrs Tudball. One wis about a fortnight •ago, the last was on the afternoon of the 28th. I had no conversation with Mrs Tudball at all then. She would not speak to me and I shook hands with her only. The first conversation was with regard to my effects at Tudball’s house being opened by the bailiff in charge of Tudball’s estate, and I told her to destroy all my English letters. A Mrs Locke came with Mrs Tudball both times. She wanted me to have a pair of trousers but I refused, and I asked her how Mr Tudball was getting on, and sho told me that he had been in the Hospital, and ‘that she thought he was going to be brought up before tbe Court on Monday. Tbe date of the letter to Constable Moutray is the 28tb, the same day that I saw Mrs Tudball, but I wish to say that I asked Warder Ray on the morning before I saw Mrs Tudball to take a letter forme to Constable Moutray, as he was going out with the dust-cart past the Depot. I missed seeing him in the afternoon, so that the letter went on the Friday morning. Mr Tudball filled up the body of tbe bill, and I signed tbe acceptance. I never gave it back to Mr Tudball. On the 27th or 28th November I took it to the Bank, and put it into the discount box. I knew that Martin Burns nevor owed Mr Tudball anything, and that the bill was given without any consideration. The signature of Mr Tudball was on the face and on the back of the hill endorsed when he gave it me, and it was all ready for discount except tbe acceptance, which I put on it. Tudball told me to keep the bill until Burns came up, and then get him to accept it. I knew that Burns would not do it, as ho had a strong disinclination to put his name to paper. I did not tell Tudball so at the time. I received a letter from Mrs Tudball, which I have destroyed. It had no reference to this case. It had reference to a pair of trousers she wished me to have. The letter was written in Lyttelton, I believe, as it was not dated. I received it on the 28th, this day week. I swear most distinctly that the letter from Mrs Tudball bad no reference to tbia case. lam perfectly sure that I have never told any one that tbe letter referred to Tudball’s case. There was one word in the letter which I could not make out, and I asked a man to read the sentence for me. The word was “not.” It was connected with the substance of the letter as follows : —“ I should advise you not.” _ Mr Duncan—Well, go on; what was it you were advised not to do ! Witness—Not to refuse the trousers, I suppose. Mr Duncan—Thia is most extraordinary. Do you really wish us to believe that Mrs Tudball’s mission to Lyttelton gaol was to induce you to take a pair of trousers ? Witness —Yes; that is what the letter contained. I never told Detective Smith that the letter contained something relative to the case of Tudball. I gave Tudball an acceptance for <£l9l odd as an accommodation. I never told anyone that Tudball forged my name. Re-examined by Mr Izard—The only data I have to go on is the date of the acceptance as to the time when I took it to the bank. Tbe letter of Mrs Tudball bad, I swear, nothing to do with Tudball’s affair. Tudball’s monetary state at the time was such that he wanted money badly. I thought Tudball would be able to take the bill up when it became due. I looked upon it as an accommodation bill.

James Kinneard gave evidence as to the confidential position occupied by Morris in connection with Tudball’s business.

Mi' Izard having addressed the jury for the defence, Mr Duncan replied. His Honor summed up, commenting on the evidence. He put it to the jury that there were two courses open to them, either to believe Morris’s statement that Tudball knew nothing of the bill being forged until he was told, and that Morris was the only culprit. On the other hand they might come to the conclusion that the prisoner and Morris had arranged this matter, and that the forging of the bill was with Tudball’s knowledge and consent. In the former case they would find the prisoner Mot Guilty. In the latter, if they were of the opinion that Tudball was acting in concert with Morris, he would be an accessory before the fact, and the prisoner would then be guilty of the charge of which he was accused, and the jury could then bring in a verdict of Guilty. The jury retired at 6 p.m. to consider their verdict. At G. 5 p.m. they returned into Court with a verdict of Guilty. SENTENCES. Eobert Macfarlanc, jun., convicted of forgery and uttering, was placed at the bar for sentence. Eobert Macfai’laue, sen., the father of prisoner, gave evidence that he was of opinion the boy had been led away by bad boys. In answer to a question from the Eegistrar, the prisoner said he was unaware of the gravity of the offence, and he trusted his Honor would give him a chance by passing a light sentence, His age was seventeen. Mr Hancock gave evidence as to knowing the prisoner for some years. He had always considered him an inoffensive lad, but thought he was allowed too much his own way. His Honor said that the prisoner had committed a crime which a few years ago would have consigned him to the gallows. Taking into consideration the extreme youth of the prisoner, his previous good character, and believing that he was not aware of the gravity of the offence he had committed, the sentence of the Court would be that the prisoner be imprisoned iu the common gaol in Lyttelton for six months with hard labor on each case. The sentences to run concurrently, or six months in all. He trusted that this would be a warning to him which would last his life. Prisoner—Thank you, your Honor. Henry Richardson, convicted of fornery, was placed at the bar for sentence. The prisoner, who stated that his age was nineteen, said he hoped his Honor would deal leniently with him ; he had no friends or money, and had committed the cime to which he had pleaded “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labor on each of the two indictments, the sentences to run concurrently. James Mills, found guilty of forgery, was placed at the bar for sentence. The prisoner said that he had committed the crime through being short of money. It would be a lesson to him for life. He wished his Honor to rccqllect that he had been |a gaol for three months v/aiting his trjali His ago was twenty-nine, His Honor sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment with hard labor for eighteen months. The sentence will take effect concurrently on the two indictments. Amos James Tudball. who had been convicted of forgery, was placed at the dock to receive sentence. The prisoner asked his Honor to be lenient with him for the sake of his wife and family, and from the fact that ho had hitherto borne a good character. His Honor said the prisoner had been con- i victed of a very serious crime, and one very greatly different from the ordinary run of forgery ejases comjng before the Court. He should bo failing in Ins duty if he did not express his opinion that the case of the forging of the JI2OO bill of exchange was a swindle concocted between the prisoner and Morris, and therefore it was necessary that a much heavier sentence should he passed niton the prisoner than in ordinary c ises. The fact that the prisoner had condo.cted a large business in Christchurch and elsewhere supposed him to be a rqan o.f some education, rind aggravated the offence. r lhe sentence of tiiio Cqnj-j; was, that the prisoner be kept in penal servitude wjthiq the colony for tlia space of four years. Charles Smith, convicted of larceny or a swatch, was sentenced to months’ imprisonmnent, with hard labor; ■ft Charles had been found guilty

of an indecent assault, was placed at the bar for sentence.

His Honor remarked that the jury in this case bad recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of his youth, and as there was an absence of aggravating circumstances in the cose he would be prepared to give tbe prisoner the benefit of the recommendation. Under these circumstances ho would not inflict the punishment of flogging, which, he should have done had the circumstances of the case shown any aggravation. Still the crime was a dastardly one, and the sentence of the Court would be that the prisoner be imprisoned in the common gaol at Lyttelton for two years, and kept to hard labour. George Stevens, for larceny from a dwelling, was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. William Phillips, for larceny, was also sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The Court then adjourned until Monday next at 10 a.m.