A Wellington Commercial Scandal. A Wine and Spirit Merchant Sentenced tor Forgery. Wellington, Jan. 19.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 188, 22 January 1887, Page 1

A Wellington Commercial Scandal. A Wine and Spirit Merchant Sentenced tor Forgery. Wellington, Jan. 19.

Thk final stage of one of Wellington's recent commercial scandals was witnessed in the Supreme Court on Monday, before Mr Justice Richmond and a special jury, when Charles Cheymol, who baa until lately carried on business as a wine and spirit merchant in this city, was convicted of forging and uttering bond warrants with intent to defraud the Union Bank, and was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. The document in question was one of a large number deposited by the prisoner as security for his overdraft. When issued by the Customs officer, it represented 10 cases of brandy, but when deposited at the Bank a cipher had been added, thus multiplying the quantity tenfold. The evidence showed that sixteen warrants in all had been manipulated in like manner, and made to appear to represent goods to the value of £2,775, In four instances, the documents had been withdrawn from the Bank for the purpose of releasing the goods from bond ; but before taking them back to the warehouse, the added figure was obliterated by striking a hole through it 3uch as would be made by a file. Mr Justice Richmond's direction to the jury was unmistakably clear against the prisoner, and the jurors returned to Court after 35 minutes' deliberation with a verdict of guilty. Mr Jellicoe, counsel for the defence, asked that the prisoner should be dealt with under the Probation Act, stating that prisoner had hitherto been a man of unblemished character, and that he had arrived here ten yeara «ago with a capital of £10,000, of which he had beon robbed right and left, The Crown Prosecutor said prisoner's bankruptcy proceedings had disclosed the fact that prisoner received from France goods amounting to £8,000, which he had realised, but hod made no remittances upon. His Honor said the Probation Act appeared to him to apply exclusively to offences which might be prevented by placing prisoners under surveillance, and it could not; be said that the best interest of the community would be conserved in this case by placing the accused on probation. The Act must be read between the lines, unless it was to be made a perfect farce. He was of opinion that the Act was never intended to apply to offences of such a character ansl magnitude. When called upon to show why sentence should not be passed, the prisoner vehemently protested hisinnocence.andstatedthat over-confidence and generosity had been the cause of all histroubles. His Honor, in passing sentence, said he had seldom seen a case in which. guilt was more clearly brought home. The evidence proved a determined series of forgeries, part of a long-continued design to defraud It was with extreme pain and regret that he felt it his duty to sentenceprisoner to four years' penal servitude,