INITIALS SAID TO BE FORGED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 834, 30 November 1929, Page 1

INITIALS SAID TO BE FORGED

Action Over Promissory Note WAS DOCUMENT IRREGULAR? A SUGGESTION that his initials had been forged beside an altered date on a dishonoured P.N. for £77;> on which he is now being sued for payment, was made by James Ernest Gear, of Auckland, in the Supreme Court yesterday. A new development occurred today when a bank teller, experienced in handwriting, described the whole note as irregular on its face because the word “seven” of the amount had been obviously altered from “two” without being initialled.

A Sydney accountant, Edward Joseph Flood, is claiming payment as holder in due course of a promissory note for £775. made by James Ernest Gear, of One Tree Hill, in Sydney in January, 1923. The note was made to John McLaughlin and Son, solicitors, of Sydney, by whom it was endorsed to V. A. Wawn, who endorsed it to Flood. Gear alleged that the note was obtained under duress or undue influence by McLaughlin, while acting as his solicitor. Defendant alleged that he was induced by McLaughlin that it was necessary for the latter to accompany him to New Zealand to take his affairs out of a Wellington solicitor s control, and that on the eve of departure McLaughlin persuaded him to sign the note on a plea of-temporary financial embarrassment. Mr. Roger§on represented the plaintiff and Mr. Parry, of Wellington, the defendant. BANK TELLER’S EVIDENCE At the hearing today a teller in an Auckland, bank was called to give evidence on the initials on the note. He said the first point that struck him was the alteration on the P.N., the written word “two” of the sum “two hundred,” over which “seven” had been written, the change not being initialled. As the words in a cheque or bill were the‘most important part, he would not pass the bill as regular. He admitted that if the rest of the bill was in order he would have passed over the initials pointed out to him. The three sets of initials on the P.N. were not in the same hand, and Gear either made one set, or two sets, but not the three lots. He considered that Gear would make all his initials the same way, though he agreed that a man’s initials sometimes differed from his full signature. COME TO NEW ZEALAND While living in Sydney in 1923, Gear said he became acquainted with McLaughlin, a solicitor, who represented that the legal adviser, acting as trustee of witness’s estate in Wellington, was trying to deprive him of it. In consequence witness and McLaughlin came to New Zealand to look into the conduct of his estate and to convince the Wellington solicitor that the reports of his drinking were untrue. Two hours before the steamer was to sail, continued Gear, McLaughlin said he was unable to make the trip because he was financially embarrassed. Producing promissory notes for £ SSO, £775 and £2OO, McLaughlin suggested that if witness signed them he (McLaughlin) would be able to accompany him. When witness declined to sign McLaughlin explained that the notes were required merely to deposit as security until witness received the money due to him under his father’s will. Witness confessed he was staggered when he saw the extent of the notes. His Honour: Did you swear at McLaughlin when you saw the amounts? —I suppose I did. After thinking the proposals over, and upon McLaughlin giving an undertaking the bills would not be presented, witness said he signed the promissory notes, but did not discuss I where the notes were payable or when. The initials beside an altered date

on the promissory notes were pointed out to witness, who declared they were not his. After examining the letters under a magnifying glass. Gear again announced that he was sure the “J” was not in his writing. He also said he did not make an “1" like the one on the note. Mr. Parry submitted that the note was not complete and regular on its face. His Honour also shared the view that any bank would not regard the note as regular. The initialling was different from the signature, the “J” being made differently. The document was so suspicious on its face that a handwriting expert’s opinion should be obtained. NO DATE OF PAYMENT? His Honour said it appeared from the evidence that no date of pajment was ever agreed on and that a date was inserted in the P.N. without the maker’s consent. At the judge’s suggestion, Mr. Parry applied for and was granted an amendment in the defence alleging that the plaintifT took a bill that was not regular on its face. DISHONOURED P.N. During the course of legal argument, Mr. Rogerson claimed there was no justice or principle In the argument that the maker of a bill could escape his obligations because there was an uninitialled alteration in one of the words of amount. His Honour expressed the opinion that if he held that a bill containing uninitialled alterations was valid, he would be opposing all banking practice and the banks would be passing bills they had no right to, relying on his decision. Decision was reserved. j