“BOGUS” CHEQUE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 968, 10 May 1930, Page 10

“BOGUS” CHEQUE

YOUNG MAN CONVICTED OF UTTERING HANDWRITING EVIDENCE A young Czeeho-Slovakian, Frank Markovini, bricklayer, was found guilty at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr. Justice Smith, on charges of forgery, uttering and false pretences, it being alleged that lie had obtained a shirt valued at 12s 6d, and £4 17s 6d in money. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr. Hubble appeared for the Crown, and accused was represented by Mr. Hampson, According to George Alfred Ashley, a member of a City firm, accused went into the shop at 5.30 p.m. on Christmas Eve and bought a shirt for 12s 6d. He handed over a cheque for £5 10s drawn on the Union Bank of Australia in Auckland by Alf Lafrankie, in favour of Milo Kactello. Witness asked accused to endorse the cheque, which he did, in the name of Kactello, giving as his address 9 Golf Road, Epsom. He received £4 17s 6d in change. The cheque was returned by the bank marked “No account.” On April 12 accused was identified by witness among a number of other men at the police station. Cross-examined by Mr. Hampson, Detective Moon said that when he obtained a sample of handwriting from accused, Markovini denied all knowledge of the cheque. After being identified at a police parade accused was arrested and he then denied signing the cheque or any knowledge of it. Ho admitted he had not questioned accused regarding his movements on Christmas Eve because he did not know the time the cheque had been passed. He said accused was not brought before court on Saturday because it was too late. SAME PERSON Clarence Cecil Spedding testified that the sample handwriting and the endorsement on the cheques were written by the same person and when handed four signatures by Mr. Hampson witness gave it as his opinion that they were not all written by the same hand and made a discrimination. This, however, was disputed when Mr. Wiseman, a partner to Mr. Hampson, gave evidence that he had written some of the signatures and the accused the others, and that those pointed out by Mr. Spedding as written by the same hand, included signatures written by both of them. The movements of the accused on Christmas Eve were outlined by Mr. Hampson, who called witnesses who testified that they could account for the accused on that evening and that he could not have been in the shop, as alleged by the Crown. After a short retirement the jury brought in a verdict of guilty on the second, count of uttering the cheque. He was remanded for sentence until Monday morning.