ALLEGED FORGERIES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 193, 24 November 1910, Page 2

ALLEGED FORGERIES

' * A WELLINGTON COURT CASE. - By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Yesterday. "I am of opinion that the endorsements are not those .of defendant, but are forgeries by one man. On the evidence of defendant, which I absolutely bielieve, and on my own opinion, based' on the comparisons mentioned, I , have no hesitation in saying that the endorsement on the bill sued on is a forgery." In these words, Dr. McArthur,' S.M., disposed of "an action brought in the Magistrate's- Court by the Te Aro Loan Discount and Invest- ! meat Company, . Ltd., against John j Pitchett, of Ohiro road, wheelwright, 'land judgment was delivered this morn- • ing. Plaintiffs claimed £4O as holders of a promissory note dated August 9, 1909, made by Thomas McCarthy (now deceased) and payable. four months" after date to plaintiff company or order and claimed to have been endorsed by defendant. The note was dishonored, and notice of such dishonor was given to defendant. Defendant denied liability, and alleged that , the endorsement on the note was not his but was a forgery. His Worship then gave' his opinion, quoted above, after comparison of the endorsements on the note sued on ana on two other notes with three admitted signatures of defendant on two receipts and the notice of dishonor. Further, on comparing the endorsements with a letter purporting to be written by. T. McCarthy, in which defendant's name occurred twice, the Magistrate . was of opinion that the person who wrote the letter also wrote the endorsements. His opinion was strengthened by a further comparison of defendant's name written in a promissory note, signed by Thomas McCarthy. Defendant certainly received notices of the dishonor of the bills made by McCarthy, such notices including the words, "endorsed by J. Fitchett," but he stated he attached no importance to these words, and simply passed'the notices on to McCarthy. The Magistrate did not think such conduct on defendant's part precluded him from setting up the defence he did. Defendant was many times in the office of the company, and a word' between the parties could have put matters right at once. Judgment was for defendant Fitchett, with costs as per scale.