SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 8 May 1925, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS,

TIMARU, THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1925,

Before His Honour Mr Justice Adams

The criminal sessions of the Supremo Court were continued, in Ximuru yesterday morning, boloro His Honour Mr Justice Adams, when further evidence in the case of lorgery and theft against James Murray (lorinerly a postal official at Bairlie) was heard. Accused was defended by Mr A. H. Paterson. Mr W . jU. Campbell, Crown Solicitor, appeared, lor the prosecution. The case was heard before the following jury: R. Jenkins (foreman;, J. Donaldson, J. W. Bowler, K. Clarkson, S. Collett, M. V. Wyatt, ,W r . Mack, C. Ramsay, L. E. Cornwall, J. D. Robertson, A. O’Connor and A. E. Jones.

H. P. Mourant, public accountant, Wellington, said that he liaa' been 22 years m the Bank ot .New South Stales, and in this service he had considerable opportunity of studying signatures. Apart from his Bank service he had had considerable experience and had studied the subject of hand-writing from text books. He detailed the methods adopted in comparing signatures, with a view to detecting genuine from forged 1 ones, and said there was a liter-

aturo on the subject, in support or which ho produced two books. The most important thing to notice, lie said,, were tho tricks of peculiarities which would creep into a forged signature in spito of the care of the forger. It was hero that tho trained •observer detected the forgery. The signature, “J. It. Macdonald” on the exhibits before the Court had been carefully examined by him, and he was of opinion that tho signatures, “J. ItMacdonald’ ’ on two of the postal forms before the Court had not been written by J. It. Macdonald. Witness went into details to explain how he had' arrived at this conclusion, and gave illustrations on a slate for the benefit of the jury. The witness.went into his comparison of the suspected and the genuine signatures in great detail, liis evidence occupying more than two hours. Witness said the. forgeries were well done, and somewhat difficult to detect. He suggested that the forger had perhaps traced one of actual signatures. There were certain suspicious markings on the back of the original documents, and those led him to believe that Macdonald’s signature had been traced. Witness further said lie wus of opinion tluxt tlio foiled natures* had been written by the accused, which conclusion he arrived at by comparing them with the accused s writing. . ~ . To Mr Paterson: Witness said ho ivould not swear that the signatures had been traced. Mr Paterson went on to cross-examine with a view to showing that the peculiarities in tho signatures on which the witness had concluded Murray was a forger, were also to be seen in Macdonald’s writing. Witness admitted that exhibits 14 and 15-did' not show any evidence of a tracin<lf having- been taken of them by a "th'a-rp instrument.lt seemed to witness* that the suspected signatures hacl been made slowly and deliberately. Writing on a cramped postal form and on. a sheet of foolscap would be likely to differ in that the letters would be likely to be closer together on the form than on the foolscap, and the slope of >lie ■ Tetters might :bc. aalittle^rffcwnt. S. A. Ogilvie, senior clerk in the Chief Inspector’s Office, Wellington, put in.all the correspondence which had passed between the Department and the accused in connection with the withdrawal of the £.200 in question Accused. had asked that the Chief Post- ) master at Timai-u (Mr H. P.- Donald) isliould interview six persons on his bohalt in connection with this mattei;. Mr Donald had interviewed five' of them, and Mr Broadfoot (Postmaster, Christchurch), had interviewed tiic sixth. In letters to the Department the accused said that Macdonald _had lent him the. £2OO in question, and had authorised him to draw the money from his 'Macdonald’s) Post Office Savings Bar.k account, Macdonald signing the withdrawal form. Accused said he had given Macdonald an 1.0. U. for £2lO, the £lO being for interest. Macdonald had told at least eleven different people that he had lent the accused £2OO. and accused said that Macdonald, on finding that ho had not got repayment, ot lhe £2OO from accused was now trying to recover it from tho Department, who would be responsible for it if Macdonald’s story were believed, and accused was convicted 1 of the theft of the money. Ho asked the Department to help him to prove his inuocence. By doing so.he said the Department would save itself the £2OO which Macdonald would otherwise claim. Accused said that the transaction in question was a perfectly legal one; Macdonald liad lent him the money, and was now endeavouring to obtain repayment of it from the Department. Accused also asked in his letter to the Department that certain Departmental letters should be shown to him in prison, by ■ an officer of tho Department, prior to his trial by the Supreme Court, so that he would be able to prepare the questions for his defence.. The witness said that on Monday last lie had visited tho accused in gaol, and had shown him. all the files lor which he asked. The persons whom the accused wished to be seen by the Postmasters •at Timaru and Christchurch had been seen.

Hi is was the case for the Crown

THE DEFENCE. Mi' Paterson called: S. A. Ogilvie, senior clerk in the Postal Inspector’s Office, Wellington, who produced 59 withdrawal postal notes from the Fairlie office, which had been dealt with between January .1, 1923, and May 2, 1923. Of these 13 were lully Idled’ in by Murray, including the amounts, but 'excluding tho signatures. Twenty-eight of the others were handled by Murray, bub the amounts aim tho signatures were filled in by the depositors, and lo others, woret not tuntiled by Murray in any way. James Murray, the accused, said that on the three withdrawal .statements (produced) the name of J. It. .Macdonald appeared as having withdrawn three separate amounts. The statement was in witness's writing. Witness said' that on the night or May I, .1923, ho received word from Tinuiru that lie was to go on his annual leave from May 3. This notice of leave was unexpected, and left him in ail awkward predicament, as lie had to lind £2OO by 4 p.m., the following day. Witness had done Mr J. It. Macdonald several favours, and Macdonald had told him the day might come when he could do accused a good turn. 'Witness went to kco him next day and asked him for a loan of £2OO. This was at Mr Ford’s place at AI bury, witness going down there from I’airhe in a taxi. Witness saw Macdonald in one of Ford’s paddocks about half a mile from the house, and on agreeing to lend the money Macdonald sat 'down on a hank in the iiehl and signed the form for witness to withdraw the £2OO from his account in the Post Office Savings Bank. Macdonald did not agree' at once to lend the money. He said it was a big ainoiml, ami that ho would bo wanting all his money in a fc-w weeks’ time. Witness reminded him of his promise to do witness a good turn and told him that if ho eoukl let witness have tho money it would ho repaid witli £lO interest in .seven days. Macdonald then agreed In lend him the mei'ov and witness thereupon gave him an 1.0.U* for £2lO payable on

May 9, 1923. They sab down on the hillside and Macdonald signed the withdrawal slip for £2OO, and also tho order required from a depositor who cannot attend personally to receive the money. Witness took the forms back to Fairlie, but prior to this Macdonald said: “You had better fill in the amount.” Witness thereupon wrote in “£200” on both forms. AVitness asked Mr Macdonald if he had his pass book with him, and Macdonald said it was at liis home some considerable distance away. AVitncss said lie had to be back at the office in Fairlie by one o’clock, and ho told Macdonald to bring his pass book to him tho first timo he was in Fairlio so that he could enter the withdrawal in it. in the meantime witness told him not to do any business with his book either at Timaru or Fairlio, or witness would get a “pleasei explain” for having effected a withdrawal without having noted the withdrawal in his (Macdonald’s) book at the time. That night at Fairlie witness completed tho filling in of both forms inserting the

name of A. Riddle, as authorised agent on the special authority form. AVitness then adopted the usual procedure to ■effect a withdrawal by telegraph from Timaru. On telling Mr Riddle, that he had made him authorised agent for a withdrawal from Macdonald’s account (as Macdonald could not attend personally), he at first declined to sign, but subsequently agreed to do so when witness offered ito give him liis personal receipt for the money. Later in the afternoon witness noticed that Mr Riddle had not signed the form. That night at 7 o’clock, when the Postmaster* was checking the accounts he noticed that Riddle ‘had not signed, and asked him to do so as he wished to put_the day’s work in the strong room. Riddle then signed. That night witness loft Fairlio on liis annual leave, which ho spent at .Burke’s Pass. AVitness remained there seventeen- or eighteen davs, and' during that time Macdonald visited him five or six times. On May 10. 1923, Macdonald went to witness s bedroom in the Burke’s Pass hotel and asked him for payment of the £2lO as promised in 'witness s 1.0. U. Witness told him that he had not had an opportunity of raising the money, and asked

him if he would mind waiting till lie (witness) returned to duty at Timaru. Macdonald said 1 he would not mind waiting till the end of the month. Moedonakf added that he had no ready cash with him, and when ho found that he could not get the £2lO, lm asked him for the £lO interest. AA'itness gave him £7 and joined Macdonald and a friend’ (M. Snusliall) in the bar. When they were dr inking in the bar, Macdonald remarked' to Snusliall that witness owed him £2OO. AAitness resumed dutv at the Timaru telegraph Office on May 24, 1923. Four days later Macdonald asked him to be sure to have the money ready for Inin by Mav 31, as he was going to buy Jack Burgess’s farm. On Tuesday, August 14, witness and Macdonald were in tho Queen's hotel, Timaru, about 9.30 a.m. when Macdonald asked him what chance he had' of getting his £2OO repaid. Ho said: “The 1.0. U. you have civeu me is not worth the paper , on which it is written.” AVitness promised to repay the money assoon as ho could. Macdonald said: “Yes, but you are troing before the Court this moi ning, and you may get two or three years. He added that the withdrawal was not entered in his pass book and he would “give it a go” to recover it from the Department. AVitness told him not tc be foolish, as although the entry was not in the pass hook the 'Department had the withdrawal forms signed In him. Macdonald said yes, hut he could deny that the signatures were his. AVitncss told him not to be foolish; and that if he did that he would only himself into trouble. Macdonak

said ho thought he would “give it. a go,” and ho wished witness luck in connection with the charge on which he had to appear before the Court that day. AVhen Detective AValsh interviewed witness he had told' him the, whole Ftory as ho had just told it to tho Court. Detective AAkilsh told him .that if lie were to plead guilty, lie would arrange for him to he sent to AA ellington, Wanganui or Auckland for sentence. and then the Tiepolo of Timaru would know nothing about it. Witness told him he would rather face the publicity in Timaru than plead guilty to a charge of which he was innocent. Witness asked the detective whether Macdonald disputed' the signatures on the postal forms, adding that anyone could see that they were made bv the same man. Detective AValsh said “Acs. at first we thought they were first class forgeries, but now we are satisfied that tliev are Macdonald's.” Ho then shook bauds and witness left the room. To Air Camnbcl 1 : AA'itness admitted that he hod the £2OO and that unless 1 Macdonald signed' the two documents in question he had .no right to it. But Macdonald did sign them in the paddock at Albury. It would have taken a quarter of an hour to iiave gone from the paddock to Macdonald s house to ,get liis pass book. .Witness could not remember whether he sent tho telegram to Timaru for the withdrawal of tlie money. If witness had been late at tbc office'that day the Postmaster (Mr Kcnuin) would have made a noise about it. He was most strict in regard to punctuality. AVitness committed a breach of the rules in paying out of a depositor’s account an amount like £g(JU, without the depositor’s pass book. AVitness had filled in withdrawal forms for a good many people. He did this in order to save time and the bother of explaining to people how to fill them in. Witness admitted that this was an irregularity, lie had also been guilty of au irregularity in having paid out to Macdonald two sums at night before authority had been received from Timaru to pay them, in March, 1923, witness had received £55 12s lrom Airs Harris to put into liev account at the Post Office, bub instead of putting it in he had put it to his own use. He had been before the Court for this offence, had pleaded guilty, and had been admitted to probation. lie- made restitution of tho money, Air _McCullough having advanced it to him, and he had promised to refund it to Air AlcUullougii when iio drew his superannuation. Ho had drawn £lll 1& in superannuation moucy, but had not repaid Air AleCuiiough. A girl in 1* airlie had sent £65 to witness’s sister to repay Airs Harris, and witness had had tho greater part of it and spent it in various-way, some of it in paying accounts. Tins girl would bo repaid, and so would Air .McCullough. AVitness had asked Mr Godfrey Waters, of Alt. Nesting, for the loan of i. artJ alter he/ had received ike s uns named above, and ho had not repaid this cither, though he had premised to repay it out of his superannuation. Witness withdrew liis jiuperanuuation (£lll Ids) in AAellingtoiij and in the North Island he had gone under tho name of Patrick—his second name. He had been .sentenced to imprisonment for breaking the terms of his probation, and was at present serving a sentence for tho crime of which ho hud been sentenced at 'J iniaru. His present term of imprisonment would expire on Alay 23 of this month, and lie was not anxious to remain there any longer than he could help; he did not think that anybody was. At the same time he would not tell a lie, on oath, in order to keep out of gaol. He had been charged in the North Island, with having issued valueless cheques. In July, 1922, witness advertised that he wanted some money and Airs A. F. .Marshall, of Pool Forest, had 1 lent him £Bl. This had not been repaid. AVitness’s trouble at the time was that he was living beyond his moans and wanted to save himself with the Department. AVitness had at one time been about £2OO short in liis cash as a postal official, though so iar as he was concerned now there was no shortage. AVhmi witness got a firm of solicitors at Taiimarunui to write to Alacikma.M tellin" him that ho wished to sol Lie the 1.0. U. for £2IC, which. he

(witness) had given him, it was to trap Alacdonald into an admission that he (Macdonald) had lent witness tki3 £2OO. Macdonald hud replied' stating that lie held no 1.0. U. from witness, and that he had lent him no money. The signatures on tlio withdrawals wore Alardonald’s, and it was abominable that he should say that witness had forged them. AA'itness said lio was the owner of a patent preparation which he hoped would bring him in £3O to £4O a week when he was released from gaol, but he must decline to say what it was, in case someone might “get in on him.” The Postal Department had asr sisted 1 him''in this case as well as it could do. He found the detective who had interviewed him, a very pleasant man—for a while. He would not say that the detective was incompetent, but he did know that there were men holding high positions in the service of the Government who were incompetent. Counsel addressed the jury, and His Honour summed up. Mr Campbell’s address extended over two hours.

His Honour said the simple question was as to whether the signature. "J, R. Macdonald,” on the suspected dot uments was Macdonald’s, or not. If they were satisfied that Macdonald did not write them and that the accused did, then accused was guilty. Macdonald had told them emphatically that the signatures were not his. -while accused 3aid they were, and that he had seen him write them. Accused’s past record had been brought out in the case, aud he (His Honour) had allowed this to be done because of the sharp conflict between. the evidence of the accused, and that of the maii whose money was in question. It was only right that a man with a clean record should have the opportunity of showing the jury the class of man who called his word In question. jury wouid have noticed that not only did accused flatly contradict Macdonald, but his evidence was also at variance with that of Detective AValsh, Messrs Skinner, Snushall and Riddle. The jury having heard the accused cross-examined, would be able, without any serious difficulty, in coming to a conclusion as to whose version of the affair was the correct one. I-Ils Honour went over the salient points of the evidence and suggested to the jury that they should see what kind of signature they would make if they had to make, it as accused said that Macdonald had made his signature when he had signed the papers in question —on a hill-side in a field at Albury with a paper-backed cheque book for a pad. Macdonald said he had not gone after accused for this £2OO because accused did not owe him any £2OO. Macdonald had made a statutory declaration to the Post Office authorities '.hat he had not withdrawn the £2OO from his Savings Bank aeco.unt, and /that he had not given anyone else authority to withdraw it. The withdrawal was not entered in Macdonald’s pass book. Experts in hand-writing had given evidence which, while not in itself conclusive proof of forgery, was corroborative of other evidence, which went to indicate that Macdonald's signatures had been forged, and they had the fact that Macdonald said he had never signed the documents In question. The jury must be guided by. the evidence, and should not conclude because the genuine and the suspicious signatures very closely resembled one another, that there was no forgery. AVhen comparing the signatures they should also take the evidence into consideration.

v ' r JURY DISAGREES. The jury retired at 9.30 p.m., and returned at 1.30 a.m., when the foreman stated that they had been unable to agree unanimously upon a verdict. His Honour said he could not take anything but a unanimous verdict. His Honour then discharged the jury. The Crown solicitor thereupon applied for a new trial. His Honour said he would be unable to hear the case again t£is session as he had to be in Christchurch by Saturday, and he fixed the new trial for the next session of the Supreme Court at Timaru, on August 11. Mr Pa'erson said that the accused’s present sentence would expire on May r 23 next, and he asked for bail for him after that date. His Honour said he would hear an application for bail to-day'. The Court adjourned at a quarter to two this morning, to resume again at ten o'clock.