FORGERY CHARGES

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIII, Issue 56, 4 November 1915, Page 7

FORGERY CHARGES

ACCUSED C“- r vl MITTED FOR I hiAL,

The Magistrate’s Court was occupied yesterday in hearing three charges of forging and uttering and issuing a valueless cheque against Charles Tomlin, alias John McDonald, alias Bruce McDonald. Messrs J. Masters and S. Ward,, J.P’s., occupied the bench. Charge, one was that accused did on or about the 21st day of September, 1915, at Stratford, forgo the name of “W. Godkin” to a certain false instrument knowing it to be false, to wit a National Bank of New Zealand, Stratford, cheque No. 1157,-I 1 57,263, for the sum ol £lO with the intention that the said cheque should bo used and acted upon as il it ueie genuine, and that he had on or about the same date utter the said cheque to one Newton King, of Stratford, well knowing the same to be a forgery. Sergeant Dale asked that before tlie charge was read that prisoner s name be entered correctly in the book. His name was Charles Tomlin, alias John McDonald, alias Bruce McDonald. Joseph Higuett, land salesman, employed by Newton King, said he recognised the prisoner as a man whom he met on September 21st in Broadway South. It was about midday when he met accused. Prisoner called him across the street and asked him about a certain farm, as he wanted to buy it. Witness told prisoner if he went into the office, and lie panted to buy, he would give him all particulais. Witness said he was trying to sell the farm at the time. Asked as to finance, accused stated that he had had £ISOO left him. Witness wanted £SOO down, the balance on mortgage. Accused asked him to get it lor £IOO ii he could. Asked as to where he could be found, accused said at the 1 ost Office or the lAvona boardinghouse. Later in the day he met accused at the Stratford Hotel and accused asked him to get the deal under way as soon as possible. Shortly after 3 p.m. accused, who was sober, asked witness it the banks Were closed. On his reply in the affirmative, accused said it diet not matter, as he only wanted £lO. About an hour later, witness saw accused in Newton King’s office, and as witness entered accused asked if he could change a cheque there. Witness asked for a look at it. He saw it was a cheque for £lO and signed “W. Godkin.” He replied that they had tire money, and he told the accountant it was alright and to cash it. He saw the cheque was made out in favor of “O. Holmes.” He did not notice what bank the cheque was drawn on. When shown the cheque by Sergeant Dale and asked if he recognised it witness said he could not. Witness said he thought he heard the cashier say they had not got more than £‘l in cash, but he would give accused one of the firm’s own cheques. Godkin was one of the firm’s clients, and had repeatedly done business with his firm. Witness stated that he had no further conversation with accused. Claude Stanley Williams, cashier at Newton King’s, said he recognised accused as a man who came to the counter and presented a National Bank cheque signed “W. Godkar,” in favor of ”0. Holmes” for £lO. Witness recognised the cheque produced in Court as the one presented by accused. He was under the impression the cheque was genuine. He had nevei, to his knowdedge, cashed a cheque drawn by Witness asked the accused if he would accept £1 in cash and a cheque drawn by the firm foi £6, and he said he would. When asked, accused endorsed the cheque CHolmes.” He made the cheque for £6 to the order of “C. Holmes.” His reason for making the cheque out in favor of “C. Holmes” was because ho thought that it was accused s name. He gave accused £4 in cash aud the firm’s cheque for £6. Next day the £6 cheque was brought to the office by F, Whittle, and from something Mr Whittle said he paid him £6 in exchange for the cheque. The him of Newtou King were losers in the transaction to the amount of £l9. Hie following day he paid the cheque for £l9 signed “W. Godkin’ into the ciedit ot Newton King at the bank ol New Zealand. The next ho saw oi the cheque was on September 23, when it was returned by the bank marked “signature unlike.” Witness subsequently handed the cheque to the police. In his opinion accused was quite sober but he may have had a drink or two. Accused did not strike

lijm as ;> iii) who was suffering from the u... ~i Frederick U mttle, licensee of the! Stratford Hotel, said he recognised! tire accused by being in his hotel, but] be could not'say on what date he wasj there. He recognised accused as the) man who presented Newton King’sj cheque for £0 and he (accused) asked witness to cash it. Witness gave accused £G iu cash. Before doing so he asked him to endorse the cheque, Which he did in his (witness’) presence iu endorsing the cheque the accused wrote the name very hurriedly. and witness asked him to re-wntej it He presented the cheque for £Gj at the Bank of Now Zuuland. something the bank officials told witness lie took the cheque back to NewInn Killer’s He bad not seen the accused from the day he presented the cheque till he saw him again m Court. When witness cashed the cheque accused was sober, there being nothing in his manner to take exception to Daniel Sullivan, ledger-keeper at the \ational Bank, said the s.giuitme on the cheque signed "W. Godkm ’ no bei„ w satisfactory, he returned the „ I,'ick to the Bank of .New cheque batic t n Zealand marked “s.gmvture unlike \v imam Uodkin, lamer, residing at lurakawa, said lie owned a hub on Die roadside at Tututawu winch accused occupied lor about three weeks prior to {September 21. A lea previous to September 21, witness had u suit of elotlies m the hut, and also a brown paper parcel containing a pan of boots. H» wrote his name ' • piodkin” on Urn wrapping paper produced. lie lea a cheque book m nisi coat which he hau m the hut. He iecognised the cheque book produced as the one winch he had iu lus coat pocket. Witness visited the hut ui company with Constable McGowan. The door Was locked, and on it was a notice “will i.e back to-night.’ Ho examined the cheque book and found three blank cheques were nnssmg The signature on the cheque ior £id in favour of C.Holmes was not Ins si-mature. Ho gave nobody authpmy to° write the signature on the cheque. Din ing accused’s occupation of the but he would have had access to Ins (witness’s) clothes. The signature on the cheque was not like the siguatuie written on the brown paper.

Accused asked witness d, wluui he saw him at the hut, did ho think he would bo so silly a fa to do the thing which ho had done under the m * lluence oi : liquor if he hud been sober. Witness: 1 think not. Accused said twelve bottles of whisky wore drunk by himself an another man before he felt the Asked by the bench d he knew anything about the twelve bottles of whi.diy which were consumed at the nut, witness (hodkiuj replied that he did not. ho hved seventeen mi cs away iroiu the hut. AAer the evidence had been read, accused remarked that all he had to say was that he was really silly with drink, a s he had been drinking heavily. Accused ' pleaded guilty, aud w-s committed to the Wellington Supreme Court for sentence. M ien -the second information vw.s called, Sergeant hale said it uas prat .really a repetition of the first cha: ge, aud it would not occupy the Court to any great length ol time. Clue second information was that he did on or about September -0, at Toko, forge the name of “W. Uodkiu” to a .National hank cheque, No. F. (3V2G3 for CIU, tendering it to Richard Smith with the intention that d ■should be acted upon as if it were genuine, knowing well it was a tor-

yory. . Richard .licensee oi theloko

Hotel, said accused visited lus Hotel and called for a drink. ide said he was going to Stratford by the train. Accused tendered a £lO cheque in payment of his account. Accused said it was one of Dodkiu’s cheques, and it was quite alright. The change for the cheque included 0 single pound notes and some silver. Accused arranged with witness to look after his horse, a« ho said h 0 was going into Stratford to see Newton King. Witness posted the cheque to tho Bank to be credited to his account. After some correspondence had passed between the Bank and witness, he came into town and saw the bank manager. He subsequently handed the cheque to the police. The first time he saw accused was the day on which ho presented the cheque. Previous to 10 p.m., accused purchased four bottles of whisky. Accused booked a room iu the hotel, but had left the building about 10.30 o’clock. Accused asked witness if he did not take two bottles of whisky back next morning. Witness: Yes, 1 recollect that now. Accused: Did I tell you I had laid out all night about, two miles from your hotel, and had taken the saddle from the horse and lot it go, as I had been going to sleep on it. Witness: Ido not recollect.

I Lorn's Hudson, clerk in tli e Bank of; jNew Zealand, said the cheque in question was returned on September 21, marked signature unlike. | Daniel Sullivan, ledger keeper at , the National Bank, said bis hank received a cheque No. F., 67263 from) the Bank of New Zealand marled, “signature unlike.” William Godkin also gave evidence in a similar text to that in the previous case. | Accused pleaded guilty, and was committed to the Wellington Supreme' Court for sentence. | The third information was that ac-

eased did on or about September 20, at Toko, obtain from one Richard fcmuth, hotelkeeper, tho sum of To by means of a valueless Bank of New Zealand cheque No. -18UU77, signed Bruce McDonald, and well knowing same to be valueless, and thereby committing theft. Richard Smith, licensee of the Toko Hotel, said accused came back in the evening and asked him for a blank cheque on the Bank of Now Zealand, and also to fill it in lor £5, which he did. He paid him L t in notes and ids lid in silver m exchange. When accused signed the cheque, he was “just jolly,” but “sober.” Accused told witness that he had an account at the i>auK of New Zealand. The cheque was ret a rued to witness by the bank officials on account of the signatory having no capital deposited at the bank. Accused said he could not remember signing the cheque, and when he did it, if he did, he must have been very drunk. Louis Hudson, clerk at the Bank of Now Zealand, said the cheque signed “Bruce McDonald” had been sent to the bank, but had been returned on account of “Bruce McDonald” having uo account at tho bank. Accused pleaded guilty, and was committed to the Wellington Supreme Court for sentence.