ALLEGED FORGERY.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 April 1917, Page 6

ALLEGED FORGERY.

A CHARGE FAILS. . At the Magistrate', Court yesterday a young half-caste named Tonga Felix O'Carroll was charged with having forged the name of Kenneth O'Carroll to an order on W. Humphries for the payment of £-2.

Senior Sergeant Bowden prosecuted, accused being represented by Mr. A. H. Johnstone. . Kenneth Corbet!', a cheese factory employee at Bell Block, stated that in August last he took a contract from Harry Sampson to fall bush on the Kgmont .Road. Witness employed the accused and Sam Skipper, to work on the contract. After two days witness took them into partnership. The whole business was done verbally. About four days afterwards witness went to work at the Bell Block factory, and on Saturday morning he received a telephone message from the accused, who said he had sent an order up to Mr. Humphries for £2, and asked if it would be alright. Witness, not knowing that his signature was on it, replied "yes." The signature, on the order produced was not that of witness, but he could not swear as to whether lie had ever authorised any one to put his signature to that order. He may have done so, as one night when the accused, Skipper and witness were in the Royal Hotel at New Plymouth, accused said something about an order, but witness thought that vws an order for goods from the store in connection, with the contract. When It came ito witness' knowledge that the present order bad heen acted upon he came to New Plymouth on account of his name being signed to the order. Witnes went to Mr. Hughes' office and signed a declaration.

Mr. Johnstone submitted tliat this was not evidence.

Witness, continuing, said that in leaving the office, he saw accused and in .reply to a question informed accused that he had signed a declaration that Hie signature to the order was a forgery. Accused replied that witness was a "bit of a mug" or something to that effect, and accused also said that; if witn!:s,it.,ir fl vi J tP 1 ' 1 him ov«r the phone that his name to the order was no good, he could have squared it up. Witness was not aware that any man named E. Jones worked on the contract. Accused .made,, some explanation about signing the order, but it had slipped witness' [memory.

i. lii. cijjss-examiiiation: Witness alone .entered, into contract with Sampson. Accused.., and Skipper .were first to receive lQs pernday, but/ later it was Iggrced that they should all share and share .alikci Nothing was said to Mr. Sampson about the partnership. He knew that a man named Dan Keenan .worked on the contract. He did not remember that the conversation in the [Royal Hotel rofered to Keenan's order. .Witness came to town in response to a letter and a telephone message from Mr. Humphries, who held no money belonging to witness then or at any other time. Humphries topk witness to Mr. Hughes. When the contract was finished there was nothing coming to witness and O'Carroll had nothing to draw for his share. A man named Jones may have worked on the contract for all witness knew.

Wm. Humphries, commission agent, remembered a man calling at his house on the evening of September 1 with the letter produced. Witness, could not recognise the man. Witness acted on the letter and gave the man a cheque for £2 produced. The person who got the cheque signed his name, witness writing the date, etc., above the stamp. Mr. A. H. Johnstone drew attention to the fact that there was a breach of tuo'Stamp Act. Witness subsequently saw the accused on the evening of the day that Mr. Cor.belt made his declaration before Mr. Hughes; that was September 5. The accused stated he had a right to sign Corbett'* unmet as Corbett had authorised or told him he could do so. On September 0, accused and witness went to Mr. Hughes' office, while there Mr. Hughes read accused the declaration. Accused admitted signing Corbett's name,'but again said that' Mr. Corbett had given them authority to do so. Mr. Hughes gave accused a talking to* and witness suggested that he should rejoin the reinforcements.

Cross examined, witness held two powers of ijttorney from the accused, and had a private debit and credit account with-the accused since 1914 but had not collected any money on his behalf. He had, however, paid him a good deal and accused owed witness on open account £IOO, and jointly with his family and another family was also liable for at least £3uo for commission on work done. He had never debited accused with the £2 paiu to Jones. Accused never asked for the order. Witness gave information to the police some time in February.

Robert Clinton Huglics, barrister and solicitor, also gave corroborative evidence as to what iwjL taken place in his office,,

~ Mr. Jolmstoner made * application for the charge to be dismissed ,on the grounds that no evidence of forgery had been disclosed. At the time of the alleged forgery accused and Corbett were ■co-partners, and, apart from expressed authority, accused had implied authority to pay men's wages. Humphries, he pointed out, was O'Carroll's attorney, and was never misled by the order which read as follows: "Mr.'Humprhies, please oblige me, would you kindly pay (i sum of two pounds for E. Jones. He has been working for us and he has to be away by the mail train and he wants Ins money. Kindly oblige us. lam getting the money for the contract tomorow at about 11.30. Will pay all that is owing faithfully. Kenneth Corbett, Tonga O'Carroll." It would be absurd, he contended, to send the case to the Supreme Court.

The Magistrate thought that there would be no chance of a jury convicting. Mr. Johnstone considered that no offence was disclosed. Accused deposed that he was a laborer at present residing in ketone. In July last he was a lance-corporal in the reinforcements, being discharged as medically unfit. On returning to Taranaki lie resided at Mangaone with the Skipper tally. Ho gave evidence as to working on the biish contract first in wages), then in partnership. They cmployed Dan Keenan at JOs pe: day. After Corbett went back to his factory job Keenan wanted to lea,ve the job "and get Ins money, £2 being owing. Wit»o?s. and Skipper gave him an order on bampson. This order Sampson paid but declined to pay any other orders as the contract was in Corbett's name In consequence of this they met Corbett in the Royal Hotel, and asked him to make the joo over to them in writing. Corbett,,however, said that if they wanted food or tools, witneas and Skipper should

sign their own names and also sign 'Corbctt's name to the order. This was agreed to. Skipper left a few days after .and\witneas engaged Cunningham, paying Mm 10s. Cunningham worked a day and a half, and witness employed later Jones, and the order, the subject of the charge was for Jones' wages. The following morning, witness rang up Corbett and stated that he had glven v the order.

Witness was cross-examined. The Magistratc'stated that after hearing'the evidence of the accused!, he was satisfied there was no caso to answer. Accused's evidence was practically corroborated by Corbett. The case was dismissed.