HEMPTON THE FORGER.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2670, 27 October 1882, Page 3

HEMPTON THE FORGER.

EXAMINATION AT THE B.M. COURT Herman Hempton, formerly a commission agent of Christchurch, and whose disappearanco and capture has recently been widely reported, was brought up this morning at the R. M. Court, before J. Ollivier, Esq-, 8.M., and F. Guinness, Biq, J.P., charged with forgery and uttering ; five charges. Inspector Pender conducted the prosecution ; prisoner was undefended.

Hyman Marks, commission agent of Christchurch, deposed that on or about October II h, ho was passing the office of accused in Cashel street, and was called in by accused, who ashed him to discount a promisory note (produced) for £7B 12s, signed by James Martin, ironworker of Christchurch, and endorsed by Boomed. Witness deferred his answer till an hour afterwards, when, on accused’s solicitations, and on his representation that he had an overdraft to pay off at the Bank of New Zealand, he gave him a National Bank cheque for £SO, receiving the note in exchange.

James Martin, engineer and blacksmith, of Tuam street, Christchurch, deposed that ho was the only person of both that name and calling in Christchurch, Had known prisoner for six months as an acquaintance. The promissory note produced was not made nor signed by him, nor had he authorised its making. Mr Marks, re-called, stated that the cheque produced was that the one he gave to accused for the promissory note, Colin MoQibbio, ledger keeper at the National Bank, deposed that the cheque above mentioned had been cashed and debited to Mr Marks. This was the first ease.

W. B. Willoook, a Bank clerk, of Christchurch, sworn, stated he know accused as a customer of the Colonial Bank for some time. He had before seen the promissory note (produced) for £248165, dated July 12th, purporting to be signed by James Martin, made payable at the Colonial Bank, and endorsed by accused, whose signature witness knew. The writing in the body of the note resembles accused’s. The Bank had discounted the bill, and prisoner had drawn against the proceeds. James Martin deposed that he had not made, signed, or authorised the making or signing of the promissory note. George Oartmill, constable, stationed at Malvern, stated that he arrested the prisoner at Springfield on the charge of forging and uttering the last named promisrory note on October 20th. Prisoner said “ You have arrested the wrong man, my name is Johnson.’’ [The prisoner here interjected that, whan arrested, he had just made arrangements to be driven to town to give himself up,] Witness said that, after being searched, acoieed did say he was going to town. This concluded the evidence in the second case.

The evidence in the third charge wee similar to that in the second, and related to a promissory note for £196 15s, purporting to be signed by Arthur Empson, grain merchant, Christchurch, dated July 13th, discounted by the Colonial Bank, and made payable at the Union Bank of Australia. The fourth charge was as to a promissory note dated September 7th for £l6O, purporting to be signed by J. A. Hansmann, hotelkeeper, Christchurch, discounted by the Colonial Bank, and mads payable at the Union Bank of Australia, The evidence was of the same character.

In the fifth charge, Bobert McOonnel, solicitor, of Chris'church, sworn, stated that accused met him in High street on October Ist, and told him he wanted £ICD for a few days. They went together to the effioe of accused, and the latter produced the promissory note (produced) for £146, which purported to be signed by Arthur Empson. Accused proposed that witness should advance £IOO for a few days, bolding the promissory note as security. Witness said be would make inquiries, and did. He found the note was not correct. Subsequently accused called on witness, and witness told him that Empson had said the signature was a forgery. Accused insisted that the note wes signed by Empson, and an appointment was made to visit Empson in halt an hour together. They did not go, however, and subsequently accused admitted that he had made the signature himself. Accused said ho had tu meet a bill next day, and had been induced to do it, being pushed. He had never done anything else of the kind. Witness spoke to accused very seriously, and finally telling him that he should not make any use of the note, tore off the signature, and handed the rest of the paper to the aecused.

Accused—Did you not tear up the note in consideration of my paying a bill I owed yon ? Witness —I had no consideration for de stroying the bill. Arthnr Btnpaon deposed to seeing the document spoken of by the previous witness. The signature to it had not been written by him. This completed the evidence on the whole of the charges. The prisoner, who had pleaded not guilty, declined to a*f anything in his defence, and was committed tor trial on all the charges. Bail waa not mentioned.