UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 442, 24 February 1912, Page 5

UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE.

FORGERY CHARGE DISMISSED

The case of John Carr, builder, of Te Kuiti, cams on at the Supreme Court, Auckland, on Thursday. The case collapsed on account of unreliable evidence. He was charged that, on August 14th last, he did forge a document purporting to ba an acknowledgement of the receipt of money; (2) that he did forge the word 3 "wages in full" in a receipt for wages earnei. His Honour, Mr Justice Chapman, was on the bench. Mr Selwyn Mays conducted the prosecution for the Crown, and Mr J. R. Reed (instructed by Mr J. B. Sharpies) appeared on behalf of accused.

William Jones, a painter, gave evidence that on June 25 f h last he had gone to work at T'c Kuiti for one Wallis, who was painting and papering a house for accused. Wallis received mnney from Carr to pay witness, but bad not done so, and left chs work unfinished. Witness undertook to complete the job, the arrangement being that he was to get 30s a week, and the balance when the work was completed. He worked for seven weeks. From time to time accused paid him various amounts the total being £9 15s, and witness still considered there was £ll 5s owing. He asked accused repeatedly fur the amount, but Carr kept on putting him off, until witns33 graw suspicious. He went to accused's hoase with a policeman, and asked him for the money, and accused called them all the names he could think of, and refused to pay. Afterwards witness sued him for the money. Witness had, among other receipts given one for the amount of 14s 4d but the words "wages in full" had not been inserted in that receipt by him. Up till the time of the action he had been on friendly terms wtih Carr. To Mr Reed: I did not take over the contract on the same terms as Wallis. Replying to another question, witness admitted he had done work for one Smith. Mr Reed: Did you sue him on contract or on wage 3? Witnes : On contract. Mr Reed thereupon produced a document showing that proceedings had been taken on t'n;; basis of wages at the rate of Is 3d per hour. Mr Reed read some extracts from a-note-book kept by witness, in whicn he jutted down entries from day to day. Some of them were remarkable. One referred to an attempt to poison a housekeeper, and another to an attempt to swindle a society. Mr Reed: Have you ever been troubled with your head very badly? —■Witness: No, not particularly. Mr Reed turned up an eniry in the diary to the effsct that wintess "thought his head would drive him mad.'' Mr Reed: Are you on friendly terms with Carr? —Witness: Yes. Mr Reed: Is it not a fact that you have been hanging about the court talking to anyone who iikp to listen to you and villifying Carr? Witness "(hesitatingly) : No; I don't think so. Further contradictory statements were made by witness, and his Honour directed the jury to bring in a verdict of "not guilty," remarking that the witness' evidence was unreliable.

Mr Mays stated that it was obvious the Crown would nut be justified in proceeding w:th the matter further. A lot of the evidence he had heard had been quite fresh to him, and had not been given in the Lower Court. The prisoner was thereupon discharged.