ALLEGED FORGERY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3906, 7 September 1891, Page 2

ALLEGED FORGERY.

Murdoch M'Kenzie Before tfco Court

In the R. M., Court this morning, before Colonel Eoberts, ft.M, and Mr J. Gardiner, J.P., Murdoch M'Kenzie was charged by Patrick M'lntyr®, with having on or about Bth January, 1890, forged the name of H. J. Dagg to a Road Board receipt for the sum of £3. Mr Beard appeared for the tion and Mr Pownall for the defen^jpF Mr Beard, in opening the ease, stated that the alleged offences had been committed whilst the defendant waa overBeer to the Masterton Road Board. The mo3e adopted by the defendant was from time to time to hand in memorandums to the Clerk of the Board of wages owing to euoplpyds of the Board. Cheques were paid by the Board and handed over to the accused, who in some instances cashed them and used theui for his own benefit, the names of the supposed wages men having been forged. A fraud on the Board and its men had been perpe* trated.

Mr Pownall objeoted to the case of H.J, lJagg being takan first. The information on whioh the. accused arrested should be proceeded with. His Worship took a noto of the objection.

Charles Augustus Tabuteau, sworn, seated: lam a bank manager residing in Masterton. I know the accused • ' and his signature. The. document ' produoed bears his signature. I saw him sign it.

Patrick Molntyre, sworn, stated:. I am an audit inspector appointed by the Government. The present information has been laid by me. Aciing in the exercise of my duties, I audited the accounts of the Masterton fiosd Board about six weeks ago, Mj suspicions were then aroused in ? consequence of certain matters connected with the accounts, The receipt produced came before me in the . course of my duties, and I concluded that Mr. Dagg had not signed it, I know the handwriting of the accused. , Mr Pownall objected to the witness . gviing expert evidence as to the Big- , 1 nature of the accused. Witness continuing : I have had a ; good deal of experience in witnessing • handwriting;. I, believe the hatad* 1 writing on the receipt to be that of the < accused. The receipt for the sum of £8 is a leceipt for money : which has been paid by the Masterton Road Board. The ohequo has been debited to the Board's account at the Bank. I believe the accused was overseer for the Board. This is net the only discrepancy in the accounts whioh has come notice; - ri

By Mr Pownnll: Ido not know tha handwriting on the body of the re* oeipt. I hare seen Mr Dagg's signa* ture. That production is an attempt, to imitate the signature of Mr Dagg< I formed my opinion ob to the sign* ture being that of the accused from comparison with other signatures of McKenzie. Ido not profess to be an expert in writing. Mr Pownali: Then J will ask that this evidence be struck out. Gross examination continued: I cannot compare the signatures on the documents produced with those of the accused.

Mr Beard: The witness has already stated thab in his opinion the signature on the reeeipt is that of the accused) having compared it with the signature on the cheque ' produced hy Mr Tabuteau.

Mr Fownall asked that the whole : of tho evidence should be struok out or the documents produced vhigtL would show the comparison* Hia Wotahip decided to adjourfflshev Court for fifteen minutes to ~ Mr M'lntyre producing the evidence. On the Gourt resuming, Mr Pow« nail asked Mr Mclntyre if he had the papers.—Mr Mclntyre; Yes, some of them. By some of the letters I am of opinion that the handwriting is by !t the same person. Considerable argument between counsel as to the value of thil evidence followed, and as to whether the signatures to the documents ought to be proved, the Court finally ruling that the signatures would have to be proved.

Cross-examination of Mr Mclntyre continued by Mr Pownall: I did not ask Mr Dagg if the signature was his. I had not audited the Board's booke before. Another officer had. The item is for work done. From my own knowledge 1 do- not know who made , the entry on thepaysheet, orwhethdr the work was done 'or not! The entry on the pay sheet is not in; McKenzie's handwriting. My sus« picions were aroused from information received. In auditing the accounts I became aware of a cheque for £8 9b 3a given by Mr A. W. Gerlall on Mc|£enzie's account. Mr Itenall's cheque did not pass through the Board')} books. The £3 was not included. (Jftnnot from memory say that any Dagg was not included. The the Board receiving a cheque for. N I monies alleged to be unaccountecUfV: - aroused my suspicion. Have not laid' any information against the member of the Board for compounding. The Court then idjourned until 2 p.m.