RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5438, 31 August 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, August 30. (Before T. A. Manaford, Esq., 11. M,) DRUNKENNESS. Two inebriates were disposed of in the usual way. A DISORDERLY HOUSE. Madame Valentine was charged by the police with keeping a house of ill-fame. On the application of Mr. Gordon Allan, who appeared for the accused, the case was remanded for a week. ALLEGED FORGERY. Alfred Henry McLean was charged, that he did, on the 29th April, 1878, feloniously, with intent to defraud, forge a certain document purporting to be an agreement between William Nicholson and one James Barlow, setting out terms of an alleged sale by William Nicholson to James Barlow, of his business as an undertaker and cabinetmaker, and purporting to be signed by William Nicholson, Mr. Travers appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Dilivier for the defence. The ■ first witness examined was William Alfred Waters, who deposed that he was a law clerk, at present in tho employment of Messrs. T. K. Macdonald and Co. The document produced was in his (witness’s) handwriting, The name attached, “ James Barlow, ’ was not in his writing, neither was the alteration “bank rate of interest.” Tho document was drawn at the request of the defendant, but on what date ho could not swear. He did not see tho document after he gave it to defendant until it was shown to him a few days ago by Mr. Quick. Cross-examined by, Mr. Ollivier ; Had transacted several business matters for Mr. Nicholson. Was always paid for bis work bycheques signed in Nicholson's name. At the same time .ho thought McLean had the business. The first time ho saw Nicholson with reference to tho agreement alleged to he forged was on the Saturday after it was drawn. Witness went to see himahoutthepurchase of someland. On that occasion witness said tu Nicholson, M Who is the Mr. 8., that has been mentioned by defendant as purchaser of the business ? ” Nicholson replied that the name /was not to transpire, and said, “ Did not McLean tell you who it was ?” Witness replied that he did not. Witness asked him if he (Nicholson) had signed tho agreement, and was answered in the affirmative. On the jl2th July witness saw McLean again, who toll him that bo and Nicholson bad had a row with reference to the sale of tho business. On tt/o following day (Saturday) witness saw Nicholson, who said

that McLean had forged his name to the agreement, and added, “ If you are not careful you will be dragged - into it too.” Witness replied, “ Wbat ever do you mean ? ” While witness was with Nicholson, McLean came in and asked for money, but Nicholson refused to give him any. Witness advised Nicholson not to take proceedings against McLean. McLean asked NichoLpn what he intended to do in the matter, and Nicholson replied, “I wish you to give up possession of the place, and I will allow you at the rate of £5 per week for your services, and will give you Barlow’s fidelity money back and your furniture upstairs.” McLean replied, “I will see you —— first.” Nicholson then said, “ Tell wo what you want I" McLean then said, “ You are well aware that I have purchased the business, and t believe you are trying to do with me the same as you did with the previous firm, Messrs Lambert and Ohusman.” Nicholson said again that he would take the business back. McLean then said that he would take half the profits. Witness did not remember any conversation taking place about the profits of the old partnership. ' McLean then said that he wanted a character, stating that Nicholson had accused him of being a forger, and added, “You know that you signed the document. If you had not done so I should not have been so ready to give it up to you.” . In his counter proposal McLean also stipulated that he was to have a sahry of £5 per week, against which was to be set the rent, Nicholson agreed to that. McLean told Nicholson that he thought the half share of the profits might amount to between £3OO and £4OO. It was agreed that the stock should be taken, when McLean said, “You have accused me of being a forger. Nicholson replied “Well, never mind about that; let it drop. We have settled the matter now,” Witness asked to see the document, and Nicholson replied that it was understood the papers were not to he opened unless both he and McLean consented. He was referring to a time when they had been sealed up and initialed by McLean. McLean said that he would prefer that Nicholson shou’d keep the documents in. his possession until he (McLean) got his money. When McLean said to Nicholson, “You know that you signed the document,” the latter replied, “If I signed it, I don’t remember It.” Did not recollect Nicholson saying that if he did sign the document it was blank when he signed it. Did not pay much attention to the conversation, as he thought the matter was all settled, Nicholson asked McLean how he wished to be paid his share of the profits, adding that it would push him to pay it in cash, on account of his bank overdraft. It was then arranged that the conversation should never be divulged. Nicholson said he considered McLean was entitled to the amount he bad asked for. On going out ? nto the shop, Nicholson told Kimhaw, the manager, that the whole affair was settled amicably. Cross-examined by Mr, Travers : The obliterations on the stamp on the documents A and B are not in the same handwriting. Neither of the obliterations are in my handwriting. The case was then adjourned until next Tuesday. .