R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 116, 26 April 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) THIS DAY. FORGERY. Tomati Hautaupu was brought up on another charge of forgery of a cheque for £6, at Tologa Bay, on the 3rd of April, 1884. Mr. DeLautour appeared for thp accused. T. N. Andrews, who is a storeman at Tologa Bay, deposed—The accused came to my store on the Sth instant and ordered some clothes. He took them away at dinner time. He also paid 2s. for a debt "on a girth. He gave £3 for the clothes, and paid for them by a cheque for £6, which was drawn by M. Mullooly, and in favor of Hatarapa. I brought the cheque down on the Saturday following to Mr. Shelton. Accused told me Hatarapa lent him the cheque to take out £3 which accused had lent him some time before. I could not swear to the cheque. The clothes before me are exactly similar to those I sold accused. The cheque produced is very like the one I received from him. I said to him this is Mullooly’s cheque, I suppose it is alright, he laughed and said “ Oh, yes ?” To Mr. DeLautour: I thought the cheque was right, as it had Mullooly’s signature to it. I gave accused £2 18s. change. F. J. Shelton deposed : I recognise the cheque in question. It was given to me by last witness the 15th April. I think I told him that I thought it was not Mullooly’s signature. Mr. Mullooly deposed as to having known accused since 1871. That was not his signature to the cheque. J. Christie deposed that he was ledgerkeeper at the Bank of New Zealand. That lhe cheque in question was not cashed, because the signature was doubtful. C. I’. Browne gave evidence similar to that adduced in the former case. W. Judd recognized the marks on the suit of clothes, as the same he had sent up to the store at Tologa Bay. Constable Stagpole deposed as to arresting the prisoner at Tologa Bay in the IGth inst. The rest of his evidence was the same as in the other case. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. DeLautour submitted that there was no evidence to pvove the identification of the cheque. His Worship considered that the evidence was sufficient to warrant him sending the case to a higher Court. He would therefore commit the prisoner for trial.