ALLEGED FORGERY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1906, 20 June 1889, Page 4

ALLEGED FORGERY.

At the R.M. Court, Timaru, on Tuesday, Peter Birrell was charged on the information of Mr Eames, district audit inspector, with (1) that on the sth September, 1888, he feloniously did . an acquittance sum of £12438 3d with intent thereby to defraud. ’Mr White stated the facts of the case, W. Gregg arid Co., Diinedin, !were creditors in the estate cf - Julius Siegert 'for £33 10s, for which: amount they were entitled to a first dividend of £l2 lls 3d. In the signature column of the dividend sheet instead of a signature was “ See voucher No. ” in ink, and the blank supplied in pencil “100.” The ink writing was doneby accused • the pencil figures were supplied by Mr Eames when be had numbered the vouchers be afterwards found. On theJlth,,,August last accused filled up a cheque in the estate in favour of “dividends,” £l2 lls 3d, and Mr Beswick signed it the same day. Accused cashed the cheque himself at the Bank of New Zealand. When Mr i Eames came to inspect the accounts for the September quarter, accused put before him a receipt dated 4th September, 1888, for £l2 lls 3d purporting to be .'for the first dividend. to Gregg and-Co., in Siegeri’s estate. The receipt was signed f‘ p. W. Gregg and Co., E. H. Anderson.” There was also a pencil note in accused’s handwriting, since partly erased by himself' (Mr White) in-error, “ Please sign and return.” The creditor’s name was “Gregg and CoC,” J but the receipt was signed as for 1 * G-rijjg and C 0.,” which was accused’s -way of misspelling it, as the books showed. This ‘receipt he presented, to the auditor, as having been received from Gregg and Co. Mr Eames would state that directly he saw the signature he believed it was in the handwriting of the accused. Gregg, and Co., seeing an advertisement in the papers respecting the payment ot a second dividend in the estate, and not having received the first, applied to the trustee for payment of the first and then this receipt was forwarded to them. They returned it, stating they had not received the money, that no one bad been authorised to receive it for them, and that they knew no one named E. H. Anderson. He (Mr White) believed they had not yet received that dividend. If anyone had been authbrised by Gregg and Co. to receive money on their account he would probably have known how to spell their name, and would probably be some business man who ought to be easily found. The police had been unable to find such a person, and accused had been unable to help them. W. 0. Beswick, Deputy Assignee, and A. W. Eames, Audit Inspector, were examined, and the case whs adjourned for the attendance of -W. Greggi-of Dunedin. On<>Tuesday, W. Gregg, merchant, Dunedin, depesed that the firm had received no dividend, and that the receipt shown was not genuine. Knew no oner of the name written on the receipt. Sergeant Livingstone deposed that when be arrested the accused on a charge of forgery of a receipt for £385 accused said, in reply, that he had committed no forgery ; the reason that he kept away was that he was informed that in the event of committal he would not, be able to get bail, and he did not ! like to lie in gaol waiting trial several months. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Timaru. Bail was allowed, two sureties of £l5O each on each charge. |