THE TIMARU CONVEYANCE FORGERY.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1781, 5 November 1879, Page 3

THE TIMARU CONVEYANCE FORGERY.

TIMARTT, November 4. The forgery c«e against Manning, Saunders, and Jameß has occupied the Magistrate's Court all day. The following statement, made by James when arrested in "Wellington, was read :—"ln the month of the shearing season, about twelve months ago, H. D. Manning came to ma at Tarndale Btation (Adams and! Kerr Bros.) and asked me how long it was since I left Timaru. I said about fifteen years ago. Manning said that there was an Edward James who owned some land in Timaru. I said, "It cannot be me, I have nolandthere." Manningeaid, "No matter, I will give yon J 2500 for your name." He asked me to go to Ntlson, and I would not, as T had some sheep to dip and would not neglect them. He left, and telegraphed from Christchnrch three or four times, asking me to me't him at "Waiau. I did not go to Waiau on horseback. When at "Waiau I received a telegram asking me to meet him at Amb&rley. I did meet him there. I got very tipsy. The next morning we missed the train, and Manning hired a buggy and drove us to his house in Christchnrch. I remained in his house three or four days. I was drunk every night and muddled every day while I was at Manning s. Mr Saunders came there in the morning, and ahook me by the hand, and said :—" I am *lad to see you. I was bfraid you would not ba alive this morning." Saunders nnd Manning took me into a lawyer's office in Christchurch, and had me to sign a transfer of some property in or near Timaru. I signed the paper, but knew nothing whatever about the property. During the time I was in the lawyer's office Sannderß wrote a cheque for .£SOO and laid it on the table. The cheque was drawn in my favor. Manning wanted to borrow the .£SOO from me. I said I bad not made up my mind as to what I should do with it. Mr Goodman, solicitor s clerk, said he could not act for Manning and for me as reg >rds lending Manning money. The cheque was left with the solicitor. The letter you took from me, written by Adams and Kingdon, solicitors, Nelson, bears reference to that .£SOO. Manning was to give me £IOO, and sent me J& 15 by Patrick Onlan, to Clark and another, to the landlord of the hotel where I stayed at Waiau when on the way to Christchurch. I had a passage to Nelson in the Dadybird. Manning followed me on He had a bundle of papers in his hand, and asked me to sign, but I refused to do so. From Wellington I went to Nelson. When in Nelson my brother-in-law caused me to be locked-up, aa I was suffering from the effects of the drink I had in Christchurch. I never owred any land in or near Timaru. I was led into the thing, and I was a fool to do it. (Signed! E. Jambs." The following letter, which James gave to Detective Sullivan, was also read, prisoner saying it had been received by him : —" Nelson, New Zealand, 3sst May, 1879. Dear Ned,— Mr Thomas is forwarding the papers to us, but requires us to get a power of attorney from you first. Wef orward power of attorney authorising to manage your affairs for you. Regular I accounts will be kept in our office, and you can always see exactly what money you have, and j what yon have drawn out. On return of power of attorney we can let you have some money if you want it. Mr Thomas ha 3 commenced an action on your behalf against Rodgers, butcher, Timaru, for payment of land occupied by him. Thomas siy3 the original James went from Oamaru to the "West Coast, and wants evidence of your coming from there here, and the evidence of somebody down South who knows yon again. Write us what ycu can prove about it, and don't forget to return the power cf attorney, only witnessed by Homebody as marked in pencil, writing his name, address, and occupation.— Yours faithfully, Adams & Kingdon." Mr Richard Dunn Thomas, solicitor, Christchurch, deposed—l have no reasonable doubt that the deed produced was prepared in my office, but I have no knowledge of it. It is made between Edward James and Albert Godfrey Saunders. I don't think I ever Baw the three men together. I saw James and Manning together in my office. I think it was on the 28th of March. I was acting neither for James nor Manning in the matter. I was acting for Saunders, who was the purchaser. I had a conversation with Manning and James on the 28th of March with reference to this purchase. James distinctly stated that ho was the owner of this land at Timaru. He stated so to me, and accounted for not having his title deeds, which I natnrally required, by saying he had lost them in Timaru while on the ppreo. I asked him to make a statutory declaration of the loss of tho license- to occupy, to enable me to obtain tho Crown grant from the Government for the!purchaser. I gave up the declaration to the Government on obtaining the land from the Land Board. Manning was present during tho conversation which I have detailed. Ho spoke to Jame 3 as "Ned" throughout, and stated that he knew him thoroughly, and had known him for years in Timaru i when he was here, that he had known him moro in fact than anyone else ; that he was with James when ho (James) had selected the land, and that he (Manning) had advised him to buy the land. Manning and James together satisfied me, as acting solicitor for Saunders, that the transaction waß bona fide I had no doubt about it. Noqueetion was raised. I paid my cheque to James, the acoused, on March 28th, for ,£BS 3s 2d, deducting by consent .£l3 Cs 10d for costs, stair p duties, registration of deeds, cost of statutory declaration and Crown grant fees, making £9O. That cheque was paid out of my account by the bank. Manning, I think, in James' presence, told me that the purchase was originally to have been .£SOO. but that James liadntifledliis price a further £IOO up to 45600

to cover his expenses. (A letter from Manning to Saunders was hero produced.) Mr Toss will objected to a letter from one prisoner to another going in. If it was admitted it would be making evidence for prisoner. Mr Reid objected to the letter going in, on the ground that it was of very littlo interest to his client, Mr To3swill objected to the Utter going in. Mr Joynt spoke to the contrary. Hero Mr Tosswill objected to a consultation going on between Mr Thomas and Mr Joynt, when Mr Thomas was a witness before the Court.

Witness continued — T ong after the execution of the deed I considered it neeea9ary to obtain written evidence from Manning aB to the identity of the accused James. Mr Manning made a statement to me. It was not taken down in writing at the time, but it was reduced to writing, and read over t» Manning by me. I was then solely acting for S.uinders. The paper which I hold in my hand contains a statement which wai corrected by Manning nf ter it had been pat in writiDg. Mr TosewiU objected to tho admission of ihe statement as making evidence for the defence. Mr Eeid submitted that the statement was a privileged one, and if it contai'ed anything prejudicial to his client it could not bo admitted. Mr Joynt submitted that no privilege existed. His Worship remarked that Manning was not witness' client. Mr Joynt said if the evidence should tell against Mr Manning that was not his (Mr Joynt's) cas=). His Worship ruled that the statements mado in the documents were admissible. A client could, of course, claim privilege, but no one else could. The statement was then allowed to be given. Witness continued—Manning stated that somotimo in tho year 1865 he was staying at Timaru and became acquainted" with a person who was staying there called Edward James, or more usually Cornish Ned, that he became on very intimate terms with Edward James, and was constantly in his company ; that James was working at Timaru well sinking with one John Simpson; that James some short time after he became acquainted with him informed Manning that he had several hundred pounds; that Manning, knowing that a person named Henry Waldon had agreed to purchase lot 355, Rhodes town, from Messrs Rhodes, strongly advised the said Edward James to purchase the lot; that some short time after ho had a conversation with James, who informed him that ho had bought the same for .£6O; that about August, 1864, he advised Edward James to purchase one hundred acres of land, then unsold, cloio to tho town of Timaru, and Jamej con- , sented to purchase the same. Some time afterwards James informed him that he had purchased the one hundred acres; that some time afterwards, and after James had left Timaru, Manning met him (Jamos) in Christchurch, and that they went together to the Land Office in Christchurch, and James pointed out the eection he had bought'frotn the 'j'overnment—the one hundred acres ; that James also informed him that he was then going to the West Coast ; that from the time of Edward James leaving Christchurch until the latter part of the year 1878, he had never heard from James, or seen him, and that he was unacquainted with his whereabouts; that James was a person of intemperate habits, and while he was ttaying in Timarn was generally more or less under the influence of liquor; that in the beginning of November, 1878, he (Manning) obtained information that James was then on a station in the Nelson province, and that about the middle of November a man came and took charge of his horse, and that he at once recognised that man a 9 the Edward James he had known in Timaru: that be remained that night, and next morning James said to him—" I know your face. I have seen you somewhere before." Manning said that his name wan Manning, and that tho other's name was Edward James, and that he had known him for some time when he was at Timaru. Manning stated that James then recognised him ; that he then arranged verbally with James to purchase the 100 acres and quarter-acre town section for J 6600 ; that when Manning arrived at Christchurch he arranged withA. G. Saunders to find the money necessary to complete the purchase, and that on the sale of the same, after deducting the amount paid to James, Saunders and himself were to divide the balance, if any. That about the 26th March, 1879 i James arrived in Chrißtchurch, and on the 28th of March he (Manning) attended with James at the office of Mr K. D. Thomas to complete the parshase of the l»nd, and James then executed to Saunders a oonveyance of the 100 acres ; that he declares that the Edward James who executed the conreyance was the same parson he had known years previously at Timaru a 3 Cornish Ned. This evidence (witness continued) was wanted in an action in which Saunders was plaintiff and Rogers defendant, in an action for ejectment, and was made in consequence of Mr Rogers having raised a doubt as to the identity of James. Manning did not refuse to sign, but it required re engrossing on account of alterations made at bis request, and I took it back to Christ-

church. When James came he was sober, so far as I could judge, when I saw him. It was only once in my life, and then for about five minutes. I believe the deed was signed in the forenoon of the 28th March, when 1 paw him. From the statement made by Manning and James, I had no doubt at all of James' identity. Manning, Saunders, and James were committed for trial. James is now making a fall statement, which goes to corroborate that made to the police when he was arrested. The Court was crowded all day.