RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 18, 4 January 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

i "T-guESDAT, January 2nd, 18?-9. , (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.) EORQSEX iWillam Monk, of Waipawa, laborer, was, placed iq the dock, charged that lie did, on'; the sth day of December, 1878, at Pajmerstoq North, feloniously and kuowingly offer, utter, dispose of, and put off, with ittent to defraud, a certain altered receipt for monty, he, the'said W'llam Mqnk, then well knowing the same to bp forged and altered. The depositions of John Murphy, the arresting constable, at Waipawa, \yepe read by the magistrate.. Alfred Stace. deposed : I am a farmer residing at Fitzlierberton, near Palmerston. I know the accused. I remember him paying, a certain, amount of ipoqev on Qctqber. tlie. 14th, 1873. It was for £4. The money was paid m a cheque drawjuby Mr. Peter Manson. I gave a receipt for the amount. receipt produced is fche«^ame givtin by me. but the amount has 4ie.e!n altered into fourteen, by the addition, of- the syllable " teen '•' and a " 1 "• has been pqt alongside qf the foar, making it for £14. I aTfl quite sure that neither thn-fi.gn.rfl, " 1 v * nor the. " teen " is. mmy handwriting, "beside I remember, giving the receipt for £4 quite well. I entered the amount m my account book, which ntn Y produce,, for £4 paid mp by Monk on the 14th o.f 'October,. 18,73. I made the entry the same evening when I returned home. , I ako informed my brother on the same day that I had received the £4, it being all the money I could get from him. I was m Ooi^rt m Palmerston on the sth of P,ecember, 1878, when the. accused was sued by my brother. I was not a plaintiff" m the action, but appeared as a witness. The action was proceeded with under the name of Stace Brothers, so that I was a plaintiff and witness as well. I then. gave evidence to the effect that I had received £4 frtim Monk. I was present when, the receipt for £14 was produced m Court, and I recognised it as the receipt I gave for £4. "The altered receipt was.' put into court as payment for the larger sum, and as proof that he had paid £14 instead of **4 for which we had given him credit. Tlie moment I saw it, I could see^hat it had been altered. The alteration had not been done by trie. To the Bench :. From the time I wrote it for £4, until I saw m court purporting to, be for £14 I had -never seen it. To the Prisoner': Before I gave the receipt the amount you owed us wa3 £17 16s. 4d. I was not supposed to give yog credit. I had a.ske4 s£peate,dly for" the money before yon paid mp the £4. I*do not remember what conversation passed between us when you paid me. Ido not think any person was m yqur : bourse at the time, although you,? wife may have "been. It was after tea, for I had done my day's work. It may have been after- nine ; it is five years ago, and I cannot recollect exactly. I did not threaten to sipnmon you, for had I so threatened I should eavtainiy have dqiie so. -- Thomas Walter Stace exampied on oath : I am a farmer, residing near Palmerstoo,. I know the accused. I sold him some cattle m 1873. The transaction was on behalf of Stace Brothers. When he lef£off dealing with us he. v T as m ourdebt, and-I had to take, action for the recovery of the money. I was a plaintiff m the case of Stace Brothers, y, -W-. Monk, heard m the Palmerston. Court <AU the. s.tb; December last. The amount sued for was £13 16s. 4d. I was m court when accused produced a receipt purporting to be signed by A. and T. Stace for £14. lie produced it* as a set-off against a portion of our claim, having paid the balance into court. I examined tjhe receipt marked A, and recognised it as'my brother's handwriting, but could see that there was " teen " after the word ".four*" m a different-colored ink. The writing also seemed cUßjerpnt. When by brother came from, honxevorftlie evening of October I4th, 18,73, he told, me he had got £.1 frorp, Monk, and that that was all he could get from accused. 1 saw the £4 cheque. Previous to the issue of.the summons, I w^rote to the accused, but "got no answer. When my brother came home on the night m question ho produced only a £4 cheque. I do not. rpmen\h,o.r. sac.ing the, entry matte '"in the boo,k the, same, evenins. To the Prisoner : I consider tjhe "teen" m the receipt a more cramped hand than m the body. I can always tell my brov there handwriting. The writing on the. doeuinept produced, is m my brotherV handwriting, but the added portion is not." To the Bench : In the ordinary course ofbusiness, had my brother received £14*. % should have kno\vn it. When I first hearjl,. accused sojj that he, hftdj paid dEJI^ "fj was ver.v much surprised. John Dungan deposed : I am editor of the Manawath Tim.es. I saw the accusedrip; the Resident Magistrate's Court a,t Pa|n\B.rston on the sth of December, last. I wa.a m court when he gave, evidence m the, case,Stace Brothers v.' Monk, and hoard him. state that he bad paid. Alfred Stace £14.' A receipt (marked A), was handed m by his lawyer. The accused said, it was the receipt' he had, received from Alfred Stace I have examined this receipt, and notice.ithas been tampered wjth, the'sylla.ble ".teen *-".- nn.d the figure "1" before the. "4" have been, written, with a, different colored injk. I cannot say it has been written m, a different hand, but with a different in.k. I consider it an altered receipt ; the " teen " and the figure appear t^o be m mm-h fresher ink than (others port ions oF the receipt. The. ink m the body of the regeipt appeays faded from its original color. B.y tht\ Prisoner :. I thipk no person when, drawinar up. the receipt could make the, iiame difference on it as it, has now. *^f the, receipt lind been casually placed iv n\v hands, the difference is not so, great as to, strike me, but on minute, examination I notice there is a variance. Using blotting naner or! not would not account for the, dicrffence between the appearance of any two figures, and I think it imprpbnhle that, the difference m the Receipt could exist m, the. face of the who)*} of the.djucu.meut being, written njjb the, same time, The syllable "teen " por the. " 1"■ is not crowded, and. were it npt. for. the. color of the ink I should) ypi hn ye donsjdpred. the document suspicious.. TyT'U^'n, %dney Stajte deposed:, iam a, barrister djnd s,olioito,r, practising at l*tilmeiy ston j acted m my professional capacity for tlie Brothers Stace m their case against

the accused. I recognise the receipt market*]. A ; it was produced by accused's solicitor, and was sworn as correct by the ao?used. I examined it- at the time. From the fact eof the sef;OfJ I; was -prepared to see a forged, or tamperep' receipt^ and on seeing the one produced haojnqjdoijbt from it that it had .bejen' alterejj*i. ' 4j?he Bench at once noticed vtfye peculiarity- |of jthe rflcejpt, and ulti. ■piately -givpT jtf%Oieqt for the plaintiffs. .pqtw4tlJ3ta'ndms tlie productiqn qf the re-, ;e^ipt.^^.be.alie'|^(ion ttjat Jf pqUcftTj is, the ladditiqri^o£;the' syllable '' teen" and the figure " I.'" ' Thp 1 - 0 £14 has apparently been attempted tq be scratched out, an 4 the letter. ''. p. "'- jn the. fqqrteen runs into the, _ ='Meeir:*!*4w-xn=sm^u^^ that the "teen.. b.as. qpfc r X^- %jpstf)£is- i - thejame tim'jt. - •"- ' - -■*"**' ■ ■•■ : ~™'"' , T "TT^Tie^B^nWr Tftp lettefc-'' y *-' -strikes uurns sqmething/suspicioqs. * 1 sho.uld^ imagine that' a pe"rssrj,--writing tKp^vorqV'rfour'- and^stpppiri^Jtoitj:' take ink op the pen, would no\ §eii^s-.'&k i * the dif|erenc^.UT(, appearance." v \.. : [;:•>•■>. e';i k Re-Via niinect:. J. also noiti^a.an ewtsflrf :qn^. c t he sramp; theliit upopwHich" is appj^eritl^i t ; very fresh. There, appears tq- be something-! scrat ched; oiiti - ' ' : -- ' v :•: : ; ' . ' i . '. : i~ '■ ?» Pria.oiie>, wiio reserved his defence, -iff*" 5 " theu fqrmal^y pqmmittedfop triil^**"- -^•' i EEBJuJfcfs - William, Monk, laborer, M Waipawa, 'ww* charged tha,t,be did, qh ; the -sth: qf Uec^m-:;j ber, -I'B^. atrPalnie s stoh I^ortlj; "falsely, wickedly, wjlfully,; and cornipljly'. co.inmU'. wilful arid, corrupt £ perTury,'irj;:x,he tijsti-,^-mony wlMch'be.gaY 6 upon °$h as^vfTtnlsk' * at the trial of a certaSn caqse' between Alfred Stoceiand Tho'ms-s "falter Stace anc\ William Monk at the Resident Magistrate's Court, for th^laalipf «j»j^ thers holdep. . , *.-,*,'- -*• .-...'^vj-t The evideric.elu; AlfVe^'Sfa'Se.afid'T'hc^i; Stace way-irtaterially- '+Jjj6i "sanrftas m tha preyipus case, but \Yas f ufffier supple.pent«*^.-.. Constable Gillespie, : cjiepose'tl s^ ; I.kitn uc a men^ber. o.f t MrAru^GonstTibuljtryj s'ta". tioned at Paline.rstqn: -- j| renrcipber. the stlj, ' of 'Qeoen^^er' last, an v^wh"_dfty 1 was m the. Resident Magis,t.na,t e.'^ , fX 13 . r^ « d urin »• the; he9"n"g o.f _ Qjif. ca^^t.aQ.e:pros.";/. v. William J^Q^,'«b 4 d-.lJV^.th^./d^e.tion.ot'.!'' the Bencft J admimste.rpjcV^he.' J c4'thf t^ ilr*^ ') accused;,- J,ri -the-us.uaV form ojd the' ije.w'Tes-/-; tainetnt. He was^.- called by "h^s Qpupsel tot :"" give, eviderie'e m snpporC of "hisydef iatfe.' Ac- ' cused then;s,tated ppon oath that he.hac(( paid Alfre.4. ataca -the. sum,~of- £-1* in-two--£5-notes. arid, a -cheque- for JZ4t*r He.^pro?; . duced the receipt mo'nke.d A. "and swore* ifc ■ was ithe one he. had received frptn AlfredStaci on theT4lh qf Oct obef, 1873.' &e said] '' that had the. receipt been altered, he woulc\ have known" it ;abo that he had^put ifc upon, the file along with other, receipt^ In this case, also, prisoner was committed; for trial, bai^.being allp wed, himself xa£ZW^r and two sureties of £100 eaoh.. :': 1';!' v\»"ie.