ACCIDENTS AND OFFENCES.

South Canterbury Times, Volume XV, Issue 2064, 4 November 1879, Page 2

ACCIDENTS AND OFFENCES.

THE LAND FORGERY CASE. MAGISTERIAL EKQUIBY. To-day at the Resident Magistrate’s Court the charge against Edward James of the forgery of a deed of assignment of property, consisting of 100 acres, situate in Timaru, and of aiding, abetting, and procuring forgery against Albert Godby Saunders and Henry Daniel Manning were proceeded with. Mr Tosswill appeared for the prosecution, Mr Joynt represented Saunders, and Mr Reid defended Manning. Edward James, the third prisoner, was undefended.

Mr Joynt said before the case was gone into he wished to make an explanation regarding a mistake which had occurred at the last Court-day on which the case had been dealt with. On that occasion Mr. Hammersley was reported to have said that he appeared acting under instructions from him (Mr Joynt), to defend James. This was a clear mistake, which he feared arose from a letter he had sent to Mr Hammcrsley, in which he instructed Mr Hammersley to represent him at the application for a remand on behalf of Saunders, and iu which he had written that the application would necessarily have to be made for all the prisoners. He had never given any instructions to Mr Hammersley to represent James. His Worship said it was a clear mistake.

His Worship enquired of Mr Tosswill if ho was prepared to proceed with the case.

Mr Tosswill replied in the affirmative. Mr Reid asked against which of the accused Mr Tosswill first intended pro ceeding. Mr Joynt remarked that the cases could either be heard separately or concon jointly. Mr Tosswill having replied to the effect that he intended taking the charges conjointly, proceeded to open the case for the prosecution. He said the charge was that Edward James did, on the 28th day of March last, forge a certain deed of conveyance of property, situate near Timaru, and containing 100 acres, and that Harry Daniel Manning and Alfred Godby Saunders did, feloniously aid, abet, and procure the said Edward James to commit the forgery. It would be shown in the evidence for the prosecution that in the month of August, in the year 1863, a person named Edward Janies, a miner, then residing in Timaru made an application to the Waste Laudo Board for a grant of 100 acres of land. The application was made in Timaru and sent to Christ - church where it was granted. Edward James stayed in Timaru for one year and then left for the West Coast, and was never heard of until some time in last March, when the prisoner Saunders commenced an action for the ejectment of Rogers, the occupier of the land, presenting a deed of asignmeut purporting to be signed by Edward James. Believing these were not

genuine about six weeks ago tiie warrant for James’ arrest was issued. It would be shewn in evidence that James made a confession to the arresting police officer. He then called the following evidence: — Maurice Sullivan: lam a dectective officer stationed at Wellington I know the accused, I arrested him on the 14th Oct. at Masterton. About three weeks previous to that date I received a warrant for the arrest of Edward James. On the 13th I found him in a lane off the main street in company of three other men and said “ Halloa Ned, how are you old man? He replied ‘‘ Youve the advantage of me. I don’t know you.” I asked him if he did not remember seSing me in the other Island in the neighborhood of Timaru about 14 years ago. He said he may have seen my face but did not know my name. His Worship remarked that the witness evidently was giving particulars which were irrevalent. Witness continued : “ I said I arrest you on a charge of forgery.” He replied “I will tell you all about it.” I took him to a police station where I took down in writing a statement which he made to me and signed itinmy presence I read it over to him before he signed it. His Worship read the following statement.

“ Adams and Kingsdon, Solicitors, Helson, May 31,1879. Dear JNed, —Mr Thomas is forwarding the papers to us, but requires to get a power of attorney from you first. We forward a power of attorney, authorising us to manage your affairs for you. Eegular accounts will be kept in our office, and you can always see exactly what money you have drawn out. On return of the power, we can let you have some money, if you want it, Mr Thomas has commenced an action against Sogers, butcher, Timaru, on your behalf, for profits of the land occupied by him, and Mr Thomas says the original James went from Oamaru to the West Coast. He wants evidence of your coming from there to here, and the evidence of somebody down South, who knows you again. Write us what you can prove about it, and don’t forget to return the power of attorney, duly witnessed by somebody, as marked in pencil, writing his name, address and occupation.—Yours faithfully, Adams and Kingdon.

Witness continued. Previous searching accused he gave me the letter I now produce. Mr Edward James,

Halcombe, Wellington. In the month of the shearing season, about 12 months ago, H. D. Manning came to me at Farndale (Adams and Kerr Bros.), and asked me how long it was since I left Tiraaru. I said about 13 years ago. Manning said to me there was an Edward James who owned some land in Timaru. I said it can’t be me; I have no land. Manning said no matter, I will give £SOO for your sig' nature. He asked me to go to Nelson. I would not, as I had several sheep to dip, and could not neglect them. He then left, and telegraphed from Christchurch three or four times, asking me to meet him at Waiho. I did go to Waiho on horseback. When at the Waiho I received a telegram from Manning asking me to meet him at Amberley, and I did meet him there. I got very tipsy. The next morning we missed the train, and Manning hired a buggy and drove us to his house in Christchurch. I remained in his house three or four days. I was drunk every night and muddled every day while at Mannings. I remember on one occasion, Saunders came there in the morning shook me by the hand said I’m glad to see you.” I was afraid you would not be alive this morning. Saunders and Manning took me into the lawyers (Mr Williams’) in Christchurch and got me to sign the transfer of some property near Timaru I signed the transfer but knew nothing whatever about the property. During the time I was in the lawyers office Mr Saunders with a cheque for 500 drawn on the B.N.Z. and in my favour, Manning wanted to borrow the £SOO from me, I said I had not made up my mind as to what I should do with it. Mr Goodman solicitors Clerk said he could not act for Manning, and for me as regards the lending of the money. The cheque was left with the solicitors The letter you took from me. Written by Adams, Kingsdon, solicitor. Nelson, bears reference to that £SOO . Manning was to give me £IOO. He sent £ls by Patrick O’Nolan to E. James, to Clark and another, landlords of the hotel where I stayed at Waiho when on my way to Christchurch. He also paid for a suit of clothing for me, and gave me the rest of the money in his own house. I gave Mrs Manning £5 as a recompense for the trouble I gave her while I was in her house. I had a passage to Nelson in the s.s. Ladybird. Manning followed on board. He had a bundle of papers in his hand, and he asked me to sign some. I refused to do so. From Wellington I transhipped in the s.s. Tararua for Nelson. When in Nelson my brother-in-law caused me to be locked up, as I was suffering from the cflects of the drink I had in Christchurch. I never owned any land in or near Timaru. I was led into this thing, and I was a fool to do it. E. James. Witness to signatures— Thomas Milton, Constable. Maueice Sullivan. Mr Joynt: Was James sober or drunk when you got that from him? Sober sir. Was it at a public house? No sir. Mr Held: With reference to that letter did you ask him for it ? No I did not. How far was the station from the place where you first arrested him? It may be from 50 to 100 yards. Do I understand you no conversation took place regarding this charge whilst proceeding to the station ? Nothing of any importance. I asked him nothing as he promised to make a statement. In reply to his Worship, James said he did not wish to put any questions to the witness. Joseph Eawlings Fussell: I am in charge q£ the Laud Office, Timaru. I

was in charge of the office in August 1865. I produce an application for the purchase of 100 acres situate near Timaru, lodged in the office at that time, and signed by Edward James. The number of it is 9079, and it is dated 14th August. 1879 (marked C). I did not know the applicant. I saw it signed. I remember Edward James coming to the office about it. He came in two or three times: I have a fancied recollection of the man. The . accused, James, is not at all like the man who signed the application produced. The document produced is the license issued in pursuance of the document marked C. Mr Joynt: You say the man, to your right, is nothing like James ? As far as I remember he is not.

But do you remember the man who made the application. Have you any recollection whatever of him ? Yes, I have a slight recollection of him. Describe him. He was a broad shouldered, powerful man. Was he a tall man ? I should fancy he was about sft lOin in height. Can you give us an idea what was the color of his complexion ? I can’t say. Can’t you tell us was he a strikingly dark or fair man ? My impression is he was a dark man. Was he a man of full beard ? I can’t say. Was he a young or old man ? About 30 years of age, I should say. Did he pay the money here or in Christchurch ? I don’t remember.

Have you any idea whether you would know him again if you saw him ? No, I do not think I could. Have you any recollection of his voice, as to whether he was an Englishman, Irishman, or Scotchman ? No. Mr Eeid said he had no questions to put, his friend Mr Joynt having thoroughly exhausted the evidence on all material points. James declined to question witness. Mr Tosswill requested that all witnesses should be ordered out of Court. His Worship complied with the application. William Alexander Simpson : I am a clerk in the Union Bauk of Australia, Christchurch, and produce a cheque for £SOO, drawn by A. G. Saunders, dated the 3rd of April, 1879. The signature thereon is the usual signature of the prisoner. Saunders has an account at the bank already mentioned. There have been no other cheques for £3OO other than that produced, drawn by prisoner since the Ist January, 1879. We received that in the usual course of business from our branch at Timaru.

No questions were put to the deponent by either Mr Joynt, Mr Eeid, or the accused James. James Swinbourne D’Emden. lam a clerk in the Union Bank of Australia, Timaru. I produce a credit-slip, signed A. M'Kinnon, which I identify, dated Bth April, 1879. The cheque produced, for £SOO, was paid in on tno slip in question. The witness was not cross-questioned by either counsel or prisoners. William Edward Kinnerney: I am an articled solicitor’s clerk in Messrs Perry and Perry’s office, Timaru. I remember seeing the accused, Mannning, and one Angus M'Kinnon, in Messrs Perry and Perry’s office, in the beginning of April last. Mr Eeid said he understood Mr Tosswill intended calling evidence of conversation implicating the accused, Manning, and he objected thereto. His Worship said Mr Eeid could object to the evidence when offered. His objection was out of place at present.

Witness continued : While there, Manning executed a bill of sale to one Saunders. I recollect a cheque for £SOO being handed to M'Kinnon by myself, which I believe I received from Mr Saunders, and which I paid to M'Kinnon on account of prisoner. The cheque was in consideration of the execution of the bill of sale and the transfer of some other property. Mr Joynt: Can you say, Mr Kenearney, what property the bill of sale affected ? The property at Pleasant Point.

Whose property ? That previously held by M‘Kmnon. Was the £SOO part payment of purchase money of property real and personal, situate at Pleasant Point, which was being purchased by Manning from M‘Kinnon, and mortgaged by Manning to Saunders ? Yes.

Was the advance by Saunders to Manning on the security of the lease of the hotel at Pleasant Point and bill of sale of property about the hotel P Yes.

Did any part of the security deal with 100 acres of land in Timaru? None whatever.

Or any property about Timaru ? No.

When Mr Saunders gave you the cheque, did he give you any specific instructions ? Yes. He instructed me to hand it over on the completion of a bill of sale over the Pleasant Point Hotel property, and also told me not to hand it over until a valuation of the property was made, and the securities perfected to the satisfaction of Messrs Perry and Perry. I presume these instructions were carried out ? Yes. And the valuation made reached £6OO.

Neither Mr Eeid or the prisoner James questioned the witness. Mr Joynt said he wished before the case proceeded any further to protest against the slur which Mr Tosswil had cast against Mr Thomas and his clerk by requesting the removal from the court of Mr Goodwin. This was an unnecessary slur to the profession. Mr Tosswill said he did not consider that any slur had been placed upon the profession by the ordering out of court of Mr Thomas’ confidential clerk. His sole reason for requesting the removal of Mr Goodwin with the other witness was that that gentleman should not bo made the exception to the rule. His Worship said the rule was that all witnesess not in the profession should retire from the Court. The examination was then continued. llichard Dunn Thomas: I am a, solicitor' practising in Christchurch,

The deed produced was I believe pre- j pared in my office. It is dated 28th March 1879 and made between Edward James and Albert Godfrey Saunders. I don’t think I ever saw the three accused together in my office, Mr Joynt objected to any evidence being taken of any object of visits made to Mr Thomas’ office. Witness continued. I saw James and Manning together in my office. I think this was on the 28th March I can’t recollect that I saw Saunders in my office with either of them. Whatever business was transacted at other times was conducted by my managing clerk. I produce crown grant ot section 9079 to Edward James dated 4th June 1865. On one occasion I saw Mr Saunders alone in my office on matters •to tins lafld purchase. The confession of Edward James was read to witness. I never saw such a cheque as the one described in James confession. I know nothing about it. I know nothing of any other cheque tor £SOO drawn by Saunders during the months of March or April. I acted for Saunders in this purchase transaction. I had conversations with Manning and James with reference to this purchase on the 28th Marah. I was not acting for James or Manning. At the conversation on the 28th, James distinctly stated he was the owner of the land at Timaru, and accounted for not having bis deeds, which I naturally required, by saying he had lost them in Timaru while he was on the spree. I asked him to make a statutory declaration of the license to occupy, to enable me to obtain the Crown grant from the Government for the purchase. He did so. I gave it up to the Waste Lands Board on obtaining the Crown grant. Manning was present during the conversation which I have detailed. He spoke to James as “ Ned” throughout, and stated that he knew him thoroughly, and had known him years ago in Timaru, and, in fact, was with him when he selected the land, and that he him to buy it. Manning and James together, satisfied me, as solicitor for Saunders, that the transaction was bona Joynt; Will you state what money passed to J ames that day ? I naid mv cheque to accused, J ames, on the 28th March last for £BS 3s 2d, deducting, by consent, £ls 16s lOd for costs, stamp duties, registration of deeds and Crown grant fees, making a total of £99. That cheque was paid out of my account at the bank. Did either James or Manning inform you what the original purchase money was to be ? Yes, I think it was £500: Who told you this? Manning, m James’ presence, told me the purchase money was to have originally been £SOO, but James had raised his pnee to cover his expenses. . . Was it on that account he paid the costs ? That was the arrangement. I understood from all three prisoners that Saunders was willing to pay the £6OO, but would not defray costs in addition thereto. ~ Do you know if Manning wrote a letter to Saunders on the subject of the purchase ? I can produce it. Mr Tosswill objected to the letter, as being written by one prisoner to another. His Worship asked on what grounds JJtr Tosswill objected thereto. Mr Tosswill replied that one prisoner might write all sorts of letters to another to secure an acquittal. Mr Joynt said Mr Thomas was a witness for the Crown. The letter was not written by Saunders, and therefore could not'be evidence on his behalf, fabricated by him. Mr Tosswill said the letter had been produced in answer to a question by a person representing one of the priMr Joynt enquired who Mr Tosswill Called a person ? ■ Mr Tosswill said he meant Mr Joynt. He apologised for having used the epithet person. Mr Joynt said Mr Tosswill was wanting in professional etiquette. He should use the language of a gentleman even if be were not addressing one. Mr Eeid objected to the letter being read on behalf of the prisoner ManMr Tosswill said he should object to the letter as a communication from u solicitor to his client. _ His Worship over-ruled the ohjec*l°Mr Joynt; After the completion of that deed did you deem it necessary to obtain written evidence from Manning as to the identity of the accused, James ? Yes. Did Harry Daniel Manning ever jpake a statement to you? .Yes. Was it taken down in writing ? JN ot

jbt'tlie time. . . . , fl Was it taken down in writing at ail r It was reduced to writing afterwards, and read over by me to Manning. At this time were you still acting for Saunders? Solely. Is the document I hold in my hand the statement made by Manning, and ♦«Tfpn in writing? It is. Mr Tosswill objected to the evidence on the question of the manufacture of evidence for the prisoners. ■ His -Worship asked did Mr Tosswill object to the document on the |scors of e, privileged communication. Mr Tosswill replied in the negative, but held that Mr Joynt was presenting evidence which turned his defence into a prosecution. He presumed this evidence was in favor of Mr Saunders, and implicatory against Manning, or Mi Joynt would not produce it. Mr Joynt said the evidence was certainly in favor of his client. Mr Reid said if this evidence was deprecatory to his client he should obfect to its being produced on the qustion of breach of privilege, and quoted Taylor on evidence in support ©f his objection. . Mr Joynt said there was no privilege in the matter in question. It had been held that privilege did not enable a solicitor to withhold forged documents lodged with him by his client. No comjnunication made to Mr Thomas by any other person than his client, aJrecting legal practices, could be classmed as privileged. Ibe questiw

must also be raised by the client whom it affected, and therefore Manning could not raise this point. His Worship said no objection could bo held to the production of the document in evidence.

The Court adjourned for luncheon. On resuming, The cross-examination of Mr Thomas was continued by Mr Joynt requesting witness to road notes of a statement made by the accused, Manning, to him wi.ness did so as follows :—Manning, at a conversation to me, stated that in 1865 he made the acquaintance of a man named Edward James, formerly called “ Cornish Ned,” who was then working in Timaru as a well-sinker with ajnian named Simpson. James informed him that he had bought a £ acre section _ in the town of Timaru for £6O. Manning said that about the month of August, 1864, he advised Edward James to purchase 200 acres of land, then unsold, doss to the town of Timaru, and J ames consented to purchase the same. Some short time afterwards J ames informed him that he had purchased the 100 acres. That some time afterwards, and after James had left Timaru, Manning met him in Christchurch, and that they went together to the land office in Christchurch and James pointed out the section he had bought on the Government map. That James also informed him that he was then going to the West coast. That from the time of Edward James leaving Christchurch until the latter part of the year 1878, he had never heard from James or seen him, and that he was un« acquainted with his whereabouts That James was a person of intemperate habits, and while ho was staying in Timaru was generally more or less under the influence of liquor. That in the beginning of November, 1878, he (Manning) obtained information that James was then on a station iu the Nelson Province, and that about the middle of November he went to the station. That when he arrived a man came and took charge of his horse, and that he at once recognised that man as the Edward James he had known at Timaru. That he at once said to the man, “ Halloa, is that you Ned.” That he remained at the station that night , and that next morning James said to him. “ I know your face, I’ve seen you somewhere before.” Manning said that his name was Manning, and that that the other’s name was Edward James, and that he had known him for sometime when ho was at Timaru. Manning then stated that James then recognised him that he then arranged verbally with James to purchase the 100 acres, and the acre town section for £6OO. That when Manning arrived in Christchurch, he arranged with A. G. Saunders to find the money necessary to complete purchase, and that on a sale of the same, after deducting the amount paid to Janies, Saunders and himself were to divide the balance if any. That about the 26th March, 1879. James arrived in Christchurch, and on the 28th of that month he attended with James at the office of Mr E. D. Thomas to complete the purchase of the land, and James then executed to Saunders a conveyance of the 100 acres, rural section 9079, and town section 855. That the Edward James who executed the last-mentioned conveyance was the same person he had known years previously at Timaru as “ Cornish Ned.”

Mr Eeid: Have you omitted stating anything contained in your statement ? There is some part which is incorrect. Was that statement drawn out for the signature of Manning? Yes, it wks brought by me to Timaru. It was drawn out by my clerk for Manning’s signature. I understood he did not sign it ? He did not. On whose behalf or why was that statement obtained ? _ It was made in the course of an action for ejectment brought by Saunders against Mr Rogers, in consequence of Mr Rogers having raised a doubt of James’ identity. I understood Manning refused to sign it? He did not refuse* to, but it required re-engrossing in consequence of alterations made at Manning’s request. When James came to you on the 28th March was he sober? Perfectly, so far as I could judge. Arc you aware he was there before and had given instructions regarding this deed? Only from hearsay. Had youscen him subsequently or before the 28th March? Bo I had not as far as I can recollect. Do you know of your own knowledge what time of day this deed was signed? I believe it was in the forenoon.

I presume it was in the forenoon you saw him ? Yes I believe so. Do I understand you to say statements were made by Manning and James such sufficient to satisfy you as to James’ identity? Yes I was persatisfied.

The question of James' expenses was fully discussed in your presence? No.

When Manning mentioned the expenses did he say £100? Yes. I presume James was near enough to have heard that statement? Oh yes.

I may asked you, generally, was any of Manning statement made in your presence? No. Referring to the statutory declaration by James as to his identity in whose hands was it placed? I can’t say. It would go to the Waste Lands Boards in Christchuch.

The prisoner James declined to interrogate the witness. Re-examined by Mr Tosswill. When the accused came to me I assked him for his license to occupy. I knew nothing of his loss of the title deeds. I heard the deeds were in the bank at Timaru, after seeing James on the 28th March. I instructed my agent to try and trace the deeds, in Timaru but did not get them. I gave James the cheque for £5 in my room. I do not know who cashed it. The £SOO part of the consideration Manning wanted to borrow on a bill of sale. James said he would lend it if I would , advise him the security was a good one. I refused to 1 advise him to lend it on a bill o£ sale

and told him I could get 10 per cent for it on mortgage of laud. He told me to do so and he would toll mo where lo remit the money to. He said he did want the money himself, but his mother I think he said was living in Nelson and he would let her have the income of it to lire on. The money was lent by me to Saunders on agreement to mortgage the land purchased. The agreement to mortgage was signed about the 28th March. It is now in my possession It has not been registered the land as the intention was to cut it up and sell it, and out of the proceeds recoup the mortgage. In this case I should have received, on account of James, the £SOO. and at least six months’ interest, and have re-invested the money on mortgage. No such cheque as that mentioned in James’ confession was ever, so far as I know, paid by Saunders- An agreement lo mortgage was executed. I held this agreement upon account of James- I have never stated to a Mr Jones, station-master, Timaru, that I had purchased this land myself. The Court, at the request of Mr Joynt, enquired if Mr Thomas, had ever had any interest in the land directly or indirectly, to which the witness answered in the negative. Tqe Court adjourned at 6 p.m. till 7.3 d p.m. (Left sitting.)