CHARGE OF PERJURY

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3974, 27 November 1891, Page 2

CHARGE OF PERJURY

Sequel to a Picturesque Atlas Case

On resuming, Walter Knowles deposed: I was a member of the firm of Thompson and Knowles, brokers, of Wellington, and have been connected with banking institutions in the colony. For over twenty years 1 have been connected with banks in various capacities. As ledger-keeper I had a good deal to do with handwriting aud signatures. In ray opinion the three documents produced—the contract, receipt and patron's list—were sigued by one ar-d the same person. The receipt is somewhat different to the other documents, but it bears the same characteristics, and was probably written with another pen. If the signature on the patron's list were the specimen signature at a bank, and a cheque beating the signature as on the contract weie presented, I should honour it. I should say the word "Stockland" on the patrou's list was written by the same person who wrote the words " EliS.rawbridge," but the word " farmer" was written by a different person. By Mr Beard: It is some three or four years since I had anything to do with signatures. I would not say that the eiguature to either of the documents is not a forgery. I am satisfied they were written by one and the same person. In my experience I have known cheques with the signatures forged to have been cashed. The signatures on the contract and the pation's list appear to have been written with the same pen and ink and at the same time. I notice a slight difference in the two. Both signatures were apparently written with a trembling hand. Very few men write their nam-ss twice alike. I would not without enquiry, if 1 had the receipt as my specimen, cash a cheque bearing a signature like that on the contract. I should not say the same hand wrote the signature on the documents produced as wrote the signature on the contract. They may have been written by the same person, but under entirely different circumstances.

By Mr Skerrett : There is an obvious distinction between a man writing his name and his signature. To the Bench : .There is nothing in the construction of the letters in the name Eli Strawbridge that wo.ild make it difficult to copy them. Edward Robert Boddington, accountant in the Union Bank at Wellington, deposed : I have had about thirteen years' experience in a bank, and might be termed an expert in handwriting. In my opinion the signatures on the receipt, contract aud patron's list produced were written by one and the same person, I can see no similarity between the words " farmer " written in the contract and in the patron's list. By Mr Board : I do not remember having said at Carterton that there was a similarity. The style of the " E " in the Eli on the margin of the contract is similar to the " E " in the same word at the foot of the contract. The letters " wbr " are also similar. I should say the signatures to the documents produced were written by the same nand which wrote " Eli Strawbridge "on the contract form. After looking further at the documents I wish to withdraw this statement. Ido not think the two were written by the same. lam not prepared to swear that the signature on the contract has not been traced from a signature of Straw bridge's. It is a difficult thing to detect a forgery if executed at all well. I have known forged cheques to have been cashed.

William Bundle deposed. lam delivery agent for Messrs Bowernian Bros. I met the defendant at his place and he asked me to come into his house. I opened up some Atlases I had with me and told him he could have his either bound or unbound. He at once made complaints about so many numbers coming at once, and said be did not understand from the canvasser that that whs how they wciv to be delivered. I told bun that they were being delivered according to the contract and he wished to see the contract. I showed it him, and he said it contained his signature. I then read the contract through to him when he said he could not pay me for so many as he had not got the mouey. It was eventually mutually agreed that he should take six parts. He then went to get his cheque book, but came back saying he had used all his cheques. As I had not a cheque with me I wrote out a cheque on a piece of paper, put a penny stamp on it, and used that. We then filled in the receipts. I signed one and he the other.

By Mr Beard : I saw the defendant outside first, but went inside ut his invitation. I went in the front door and fancy I went into a room on the left hand side. I am under the impression after hearing Mr Strawbridge swear tliyt his bedroom is on the left band side I might have been mistaken in saying I wentmto that room. Strawbridge said he understood from the canvassing agent that lie was not to receive -so mauy numbers at a time. When I produced the contract Strawbridge did not deny his signature. I have at least a dozen complaints of the misrepresentations made by Metcalf.

This was the case for the prosecu :ion.

For the defence Mr Beard pointed out that the Bench idiould be satisthat, ,i jH-ima facie case was ma Je cm before committing, mid the evidence sluiild lie from reliable persoi.s. He a.iked, could thwir Worships come to the conclusion that Metcalf, iu face of the fact tlntt he had made general misrepresentations, was a reliable person ? i'he evidence given by Metcalf at Cliristchurch was very dissimilar to that given at Masterton. There was no weight to be attached to the expert evidence, as the witnesses had admitted that the signatures might be forgeries. He submitted that there were no grounds whatever on which the accused could bo committed for trial.

Mr Skerrett replied at considerable length, urging that a prima facie case had been made out, Rnd requesting the Bench to court further investigation by committing the accused for trial.

The Bench reserved their decision till ten o'clock on Monday next.