A FORGED CHEQUE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 64, 10 April 1909, Page 6

A FORGED CHEQUE.

THE LIABILITY OP A BANK. At the Magistrate's- Court at l'atea on Monday, More Mr. A. Tumbull, S.M., Elizabeth Hodge, of Hurleyville, sued the Bank of New Zealand for £SO as moneys paid by the tank on behalf of the plaintiff to a person or persons unknown to the plaintiff, such payments having been made by the defendant "with'out the authority of t'he plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore claimed £SO and interest £5 12s 10d^ Mt. Welth appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. McCarthy for the defendant. Mr. Welch, in opening tile case, stated that a cheque purporting to be signed by the plaintiff had been cashed by the bank, whereas it was a forgery. Plaintiff was illiterate and unable to sign her name, and in consequence she made a matk which was always witnessed by a friend, Mrs. Roots. He admitted that Mrs. Roots liad, at the request of the plain-tiff, frequently attached her signature to cheques prior to plaintiff making her. mark. Dealing with the history of the case, he said that plaintiff applied for her pass-book in August, 1907, but it was not until nearly twelve months after that she secured it, though she had made repeated applications, the I teller putting her off with' some excuse. 1 When the teller left she asked for and at onfe received her. pass-book. On going through -it) she discovered the item of £SO for which she had never drawn a cheque. It did not Test on- the plaintiff to show who perpetrated the forgery. It- seemed to him that the whole cheque had been filled in by one person. The amount of £SO had been drawn ftom the plaintiff's account by means of a forgery, and the bank was responsible. ill's. Hodge, the plaintiff, on oath, deposed that she resided with her family at Hurleyville. Her husband had banked with the* Bank of Xew Zealand, and she had continued the account. She did not write, and her practice had been tliul her sou Sam filled up the cheque, she attached her mark, and Mi's. Roots witnessed! it. As t'liey lived Borne distance apart Mrs. Roots sometimes put her signature oil before witness made her -mark. She knew nothing about the cheque which was the cause of the action. She was unable to get her passItook from the bank for nearly twelve months, the teller, Mr. Lambert, putting her off. When a new teller caine she asked him, and she got it at once. On looking -through the Iwok she found the entry of £SO. She spoke to Sam, and they went to the hank and saw Mr. Kennedy. Witness told him there was £SO -which she liad not drawn. lie -produced the eheque, which was drawn on '•self." The manager asked Sara if it was his -handwriting. Sam said it was very much -like it; it was a good copy. She" never had authorised any persons to draw or sign this cheque. To Mr. McCarthy: She applied at leimt half-a-dozen times for her passbook. She always asked Mr. l.>ambeit. She did not purchase a cheque-book the day prior to the drawing of the cheque at issue.

To Mr. Welch: The manager told her that someone had got. a cheque-book in •her name, and the only one that was used was the one in dispute. Ham Hodge, son of tile plaintiff, gave evidence as to the. custom of filling in his mother's cheques. He accompanied Iris mother to the bank, lie told the manager the writing on the cheque looked very much like his. It was not his writing. To Mr. McCarthy: His mother had told him that she had applied several times for her pass-book but could not get it. He saw the bank manager twice after his interview with liini* with his mother. On each occasion he denied the ■writing on the cheque was his. Mrs. Roots deposed she. was in the habit of witnessing plaintiff's mark on cheques. She went with plaintiff to the bank and saw the cheque ra question. It was not her handwriting and the did not sign it. To Mr. McCarthy: She signed all the cheques in the last book at once. This was the case for the plaintiff. On resuming after the lunch adjournment Mr. McCarthy said after hearing the plaintiff's case the defendant bank felt bound to do the honorable thing. He. explained the position of the liank hi regard to the guarantee fund, and etated that there was no dispute or rellection in any way on the statements of the plaintiff, lint the Iwnk desired to haw the. evidence taken on oath in view of future proceeding*. He would eonsent to judgment being entered up for the amount claimed. I Judgment was then given for the amount claimed and costs ,C(i Ills. Mr. McCarthy intimated that the bank would meet all expenses, h-gul and otherwise, in addition to the court costs, incurred by the plaintiff.—l'rei-s.