ALLEGED FORGERY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3907, 8 September 1891, Page 2

ALLEGED FORGERY.

AforAoofc SCSiniii Soforo tbi Ooxjrt

On resuming at two o'clock, the cross-examination of Mr Mclntyre was continued. The witness said : The books were not well kept by any means at the time the cheque was issued.

By Mr Beard: The receipt signed H. J. Dagg is one of the vouchers which wpre jn the gash bo»k. The faysheets for the period from January 889, to January, 1891, were not made out by the accused. The signs* ture and body of the document produced are in McKenzie's handwriting. I arrive at this conclusion from a comparison with the signature of the cheque. It was from these and other documents I formed the opinion that the signature H. J. Dagg was in the handwriting of the accused. By His Worship; It would be im possible"for'me^to'say frpm'wb.om the Board received the receipt for 43. The reason the cheque from Mr Benall did not appear in the books of the j Board was because when I was making my audit certain vouchers —••*» missing. When I asked Mrj Moore for the vouchers x »Zl ". t'hey ware not in eeistenge, and. the whole thing caqiß out. She money was found lying in the safe, awaiting my audit. J. C. Boddington, sworn, stated: I am a Btnk manager, residing in Maaterton. The cheque of the Masterton Boad Board produced was presented and cashed ana credited to the Board's sboQun£ "ft wee received from the Bank of Australasia. The signature is that of the accused, as are also the signatures on the receipts and documents produced. fjanry J. Dagg, sworn, stated: I am a sheeplartuer, residing at the Upper Plain. In the year 18901 did gome work for the Masterton Road £oard. t m BW4 §' th JS» W*i*? a receipt. The receipt produced p not in my handwriting, and I do not think it ia a receipt for any work done by me. I did not authorise any person to sign my name to a receipt.

By Mr Pownall: I would not be certain that I bare not cashed Road Board cheques at Caselberg's. In January, 1890,1 had not an account at Caselberg's. I cannot say for certain whether or not I received the cheque ot the Road Board produced. Ido not know the handwriting of Murdock M'Eenzie. I hare received cash from the accused for work I have dene. He usually cashed my cheques. Any monies I was entitled to 1 received from him. I did not always give the accused receipts for the cash he gave me, although I gave a receipt for the cheque for £3 3s ia his office. By Mr Beard: I cannot recollect having authorised the accused to sign receipts. Ido not think I ever received a cheque for £3, the receipt of which is produced; nor do I think I did the work.

By the Bench: I will not swear that I did not authorise the accused to sign receipts.

By Mr Beard : I did not authorise the accused to sign the receipt for the £3.

W. J. Spreat, sworn, deposed : I am a lithographic writer residing in Wellington. I have examined and compared the receipts produced. In my opinion the name H. J. Dagg on the receipt was written by the same person who wrote the name M. M'Eenzie on the document produced. I have no hesitation in saying this. I cannot speak confidently of the come parison between the signature on the cheque and that on the receipt. I shall require time.

Mr Beard: I shall therefore have to ask for a remand until to-morrow morniog. The case was then remanded till next day.

MONDAY

The examination of Mr Spreat was continued. The witness deposed: The papers produced are those I examined yesterday. The signatures were all written by the same hand. The receipt signed H. J. Dagg was, I should Bay distinctly, written by the same person who signed the other documents produced. By Mr Pownall: I am a lithographic writer, but am not employed. I have previously been engaged in cases oi this sort. I was brought out from London by the Government as a writing expert. I have never before been employed by the Audit Department The other signatures besides those of the supposed M'Kenzie were submitted to me. I had no guide to trace the signatures. In the first instance I had a number of docuI ments sent to me in Wellington, and I I found they were all written in the same hand. I cannot compare the doouments submitted now without time.

Mr Pownall: Then I will ask for a remand to enable this witness te examine the doouments.

H. J. Dagg re-called, stated; I did not receive the cheque for £3 dated 11th January, 1890, or the proceeds. I say this, because when [ received the cheque for £lO it was all that was due to me. I did not receive the individual cheque produced, but I received a cheque for £lO from Mr McKenzie. At this time no money was owing to me by the Board for wages.

By Mr Pownall : I received the cheque for £lO from the acoused some time after the meeting of the Board at which it was passed. 1 gave no receipt for it. I did not have to ask McKenzie for the money. He came up to me and said he did not like to carry the money about with him. He' had banked it, and gave me one of his own cheques for the amount. Since yesterday I was asked by Mr Beard to compare the oheques. j The Court then adjourned for half an hour to permit of the re-calling of Mr Spreat. On resuming, Mr Spreat, examined by Mr Pownall, stated: I have not compared the signatures given me. I do not consider it fair that yon should ask me. Besides, I should require payment for my opinion on that point. You would not give me your opinion without payment Mr Pownall: JNo,exactly. But I only want to test your ability as an expert.

The witness: Well, I was an expert before you were born. lam not here for you to test my ability. Mr Pownall: I have no doubt, but we want to know a little about your ability. How long will it take you to compare the writing I have submitted?

The witness: A fortnight. Mr Pownall: Oh, it will take you a fortnight. The witness: A month if yon like. Mr Pownall: Yes it will take you twelvemonths to do it. The witness: I'm not so sure of that.

This was the oase for the prosecution.

Mr Pownall stated on behalf of the accused he did not intend to offer any evidence.' He would ask, however, tljat the case be dismissed, as there was not sufficient evidence to send the ease to the Supreme Qonrt. There was not the slightest degree of proof ofthe offence, There were vague suspicions. No evidence had been given to show where the proceeds of the cheque had gone. There was nothing at all to connect the accused with having received the proceeds of the cheque. Furthermore, the paysheet had not been made out by the acoused, and the money was not ob* joined at his request. The only evidence against MoKenzie was the signature to the receipt purporting to be that of H. J. Dagg, and which the latter denied haying signed. And this evidence was not altogether reliable. There was no attempt to defraud, and no proof that the name of H. J. Dagg was pat to the receipt without his authority. Moreover, they must consider tne fact that the books ofthe Board were in a horrible mess. It was absolutely typon the proseilu'tjcni "tQ"sfifoW : that 1 the accused had not received authority to sign the receipts. [No intent to defraud could be traced, particularly to the acoused. He bad left the Board's employ for some tirao before the charge was made. The only thino brought against MoKenzie was Srg totally different handwritings, r. 1 musj; hwe been unconsciously biassed, ~:I jmowing that be was going to prosecute one pf the persons who signed. The expert evidence, even if it wa>admitted,only went to prove that MoKenzie wrote the name of Dagg. No evidence was forthcoming iiiiU lie authorised to do so, and thew.vjis no eyfdgnce pf ffijepjion to <?JBl|wrad. Therefore he contended there was no evidence of forgery, and their Worships must dismiss the case.

Mr Beard said that the onus was absolutely with the accused to show that he was authorised to' sign the document.

The Court : then adjourned while their typj?sbipi3 cpnsjdpred their decision. ' On resuming, the Court said it was not prepared to giye its decision. It

would require more time for consideration. At the same time it would be prepared to hear the remaining case. |

Mr Beard said he was not prepared to go on with the remaining charges until the present was decided.

Mr Pownall maintained the were distinct. '" r "~"''

His' Worship: The Court stands adjourned till three o'clock, till which hour the accused is remanded,