ALLEGED ALTERED RECEIPT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 415, 18 November 1911, Page 5

ALLEGED ALTERED RECEIPT.

POLICE PROSECUTION ORDERED

A sensational ending to a civil casa took place yesterday morning in the Magistrate's Court, when Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M. and Mr C. I). Cornisb,J.P.,directed the police to lay an information against John Can-, contractor and builder, Te Kuiti, on a charge of forgery. The case, which brought about this climax, was one in which William Jones (Mr G. P. Finlay) a painter, sought to recover from John Carr (Mr J. B. Sharpies) the sum of £ll 5s wages due. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that he was first employed bv a man named Wallace, who had the contract of painting defendant's house. The terms were 10s per day to be paid as follows:—£1 10 s a week, and the balance when the job was finished. After having worked a week Wallace left the job, and did net pay him. Witness then went to Carr and explained the position to him. Defendant gave him £1 and told him to continue the work, on the same terms as with Wallace. Witness gave an absolute denial of having taken over the balance of Wallace's contract and positively stated that he was working on wages. He worked altogether seven weeks. He suffered considerably from his eyes, but that did not interfere with his work. Witness put in a book which he had made daily entries with regard to his dealings with Carr. The receipt of August 14th bore his signature, and he was sure it was not the same as when he signed it. He was positive on that point, because he read the receipt j over twice before signing it.

Percy T. Wash, a carpentsr, stated that he had overheard a conversation between the plaintiff and defendant. The latter .old Jones to continue on the same terms as with Wallace. He understood that Jones was working on

wages. Constable Capp gave evidence as to going with plaintiff to Carr's_ house to see about payment. Defendant used bad language and said he owed Jones nothing. Defendant gave evidence at length, and maintained that Jones had taken over the balance of Wallace's contract. The wages mentioned in the various receipts he explained were piece-work wages. At this stage the case was adjourned until yesterday morning, when, on resumption. Jone3 was recalled, and was subjected to a very severe cross-examination by the court and defending counsel. He repeated his evidence as on the previous day. The court: Now, we want you to be very careful how you answer the following questions'. — Does that receipt dated August 14th bear vour signature?— Yea The court: Is it any different to when you signed it? —Yes. The bottom line was not there when I signed it. I am positive about that because I read the document twice before signing it. The Court: What is the difference. What has been added to it?— "Wages in full." The court: You are certain those words were not there?—l am certain. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the facts as presented were peculiar. He had no doubt but that the plaintiff was working on wages. He would give judgment for the amount claimed, less the week worked for Wallace Judgment would therefore be for £S 5s with costs. With regard to the receipt dated August ]4th the court was satisfied that the words "in full" had been added. On looking closely into the writing it was to bs s = een that Carr in his writing used spaces of, from a quarter of an inch to an inch, but the words "in full" were closely written in; besides they were written in different ink. The court would impound the documents, and direct the police to lay an information on a charge of forgery.