WOMAN’S FORGERY

Hokitika Guardian, 14 November 1928, Page 1

WOMAN’S FORGERY

CHEATING HER HUSBAND. JUDGE REFUSES TO SUPPRESS name. DUNEDIN, No,-. 12. That orders for the sii)■ |n<-- -em ol names w<uv made only in v<-r> <-.wp Lional circumstances, and tluu In e-.-r----taiuiy could not see any exeepiiomi eireumstanees in the ease before him. were the remarks of .Mr Justice MacGregor this morning when AD V.'ii".,made application for the • 1 j i•'* ■■-■mn of the name of Catherine Jl-lpin. v. '••- came up lor sentence on a charge of forging an entry in a Post Office.,Savings Bank hook. Afr White said that accused wn--38 years of age and a respectable mar vied woman with one child seven years of ago.'This was the first time she had been before the Court, and what she had done was more foolhardy than showing criminal intent. It was obvious that tin' hank book bad been forged. The book belonging to her husband, who gave, her CIA to bank. Instead of putting the money in the bank she sent, it to a relative in Australia who was desperately ill need ol money. The only person she had intended to deceive was her husband, who was just as upset about the matter as she was. Accused’s name had not been puhlislmd, and lie wished to renew, an application for ifs suppression. lie considered it was purely a family affair between husband and wife. His Honour said accused intended to get credit for £IG. It was iorgery. Mr White; She did if to show her husband the hook. His Honour said that if the fraud had not been discovered accused would have got £)o out ol the Post Office. Air White; It is inconceivable that if would not have been discovered. His Honour: That is not the qu. stion AD White said it would moan disgrace not only to herself, hut also to her husband and child. “That is almost inevitable the effect of crime.” said his Honour, “and part of the penalty to be paid for crime.” Air White said there was no intent to defraud the Department. His Honour: T don’t agree with that. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. ’Adams) said accused had not been as frank with the police as she might have been. “I am sorry I cannot see my way clear to order the suppression of the woman’s name,” said his Honoiii. She bad committed forgery. She was an intelligent woman and she must have known perfectly well what she was doing. At the same time fcho had not been guilty of any offence before, anO he did not wish to send her to gaol, or even to order probation. Accused was ordered to pay the cost of the prosecution (£1 D) and to come up for sentence ii called upon within two years. pjon*ftr/wi: