FORGERY ALLEGED.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1921, Page 6

FORGERY ALLEGED.

AN ORDER FOR LIQUOR. VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. A charge against Stanley H. Mercer of forging the name of W. J. Avery to an order for liquor at Mokau on October 13, 1920, was heard in the Supreme Court, New. Plymouth, on Saturday. Accused was also called upon to answer a charge of uttering the order to D. D. McPherson, licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Waitara. The case was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C v H. Weston) and accused was represented by Mr. R. H. Quill iain. The following jury was empanelled: T. E. Lister. H. T. Bishop, H. R. Garn ham. IL Mace, J. W. Cousin, H. R. Aldridge, J. McLeod, O. E. A. Cooke, A. Bray. A. J. Coad, L. H. Johnson, C. Brewer. Mr. McLeod was chosen foreman. The facts were briefly summarised by the Crown Prosecutor. TTc said that on the date mentioned the licensee, McPherson, received the following communication: ‘*Mokau_. October 13.—— Please send one case of whiskey for private use only, and oblige.—W. J. Avery.” Counsel said Avery was a well-known resident of Awakino and when McPherson received the order he had no hesitation in sending the liquor forward- , In the course of their customary inspec--1 tion of the filed orders at a later date, the police noticed the order purported to be signed by Avery, and knowing the latter’s signature were doubtful as to its genuineness. Suspicion fell on accused who, at the time, was driving • 'Johnstone’s mail coach from the end of I rhe metal to Awakino. The polie° obI tained various samples of his handwriting and also secured some orders that Mercer had actually sent. The Crown contended that the comparison of the samples of handwriting showed conclusively that the order which McPherson received as if coming from Aveiy was actually written ’by the accused. In addition to the evidence of the police the testimony of handwriting experts would also be available. Before the case was proceeded with all witnesses were ordered out of court, on the application of the defence. Evidence as to the receipt of the orders was given by D. D. McPherson, licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Waitara, and by his wife Eliza J. McPherson. W. J. R. Avery, Awakino, ’said the writing on the order produced was not his, nor had he at any time made Mokau his postal address. A book, which it was said was used by the accused in the course of business, was put in by the police for purposes of. comparison of tne handwriting. W. D. Roebuck, book-keeper for A. Johnstone, Waitara. said that in the ordinary course of events the book would contain Mercer’s handwriting, though he had never actually seen accused making entries in it. The front of the book was inscribed, with the signature “Stan Mercer.” Constable La Pouple, Waitara, gave particulars of an inspection of the or-

ders received at the Masonic Hotel. He was familiar with the signature of Avery, and when he came across the paper signed W- J. Avery he was sure it was not a genuine signature. There were also some orders signed by accused and one signed by “Sid Mercer.” He believed there was also a person of tha£ name in the district. He then took possession of the orders and also secured the book from Johnstone’s office which was written up by Mercer. In regard to the orders produced, he thought there were several characters which bore similarity. Evidence as to handwriting was also given by Chas. Waterson, manager of the Union Bank at New Plymouth. He was of opinion that the two handwritings bore similarities which led to the conclusion that they were written by the same person. To His Honor: He had no doubt whatever that the two samples were the handwriting of the same person. The signature “S. Mercer,” however, was not written by the same person who wrote- “ Sid Mercer.” No evidence was called for the defence. Counsel briefly addressed the jury on the facts brought by the Crown, and characterised the evidence as “trivial., weak, and unconvincing.” In summing up, His Honor, Mr. Justice said there was no evidence upon the count of uttering. In regard to the other charge it was perfectly clear that the signature had been forged and the question was whether the Crown had satisfied them that accused was the forger. The evidence they had to consider .was that given by Waterson, which was co the effect that the forged document was in the handwriting of the i same person who wrote the signature I on the book, and against this no evi- | dence had been called. I After a retirement of six minutes the jury’s finding was in favor of accused.