ALLEGED FORGERY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4434, 2 June 1893, Page 2

ALLEGED FORGERY.

\Accused Committed for Trial;

: Ernest Haskell was oharged on remand before Mr T: Hutohison, jE.M,, at Masterton this morning, with.having forged and uttered a cheque for £lB, purporting to be signed by Sheath arid Hume. •' l ; ■'

Sergeant McOardle :- ' conducted the proceedings aud Mr Skipper appeared for acouaad.: . : : - -

Sven Sy verston.outfittcr and general dealer, of Maste'rton,' gave "evidence that ,the. accused came to his shop on the 29th I\lay.: He stated his name was Keid, He wanted to purchase some things and change ft cheque for £l3. Accused purchased, artiples to the amount of £2 7b, Witness also gave him £3 9s in cash. Accused letated.in. repjy to witness that the cheque was his, and, thai he had received it for wages from Mr Sheath. Acciisßd endorsed" the" cheque in'the presence of witness. The cheque produced was the one given to witness, Not having sufficient change, told accused that when the bank opened in the morning he would get the balance of the cheque. Accused wanted to get the change at once, when witness told him to try and get it. changed somewhere else. On the following morning the cheque'was .presented for payment .at the bank on whiohit. was drawn]' and .returned" marked; " signature unlike.";' Accused-did not return;on|thefdllowing morning for hisohiiuge,-and had Bince made no demand foY it. ';'

By Mr Skipper: Had seen the accused somo years previously, but did not remember him, and did not know. his name till he was told who he was after the arrest. It was too late in the evening to make proper enquiry, If the bank had been open would have sent accused to get it changed. The gob(]8; were • parohasod before the cheque was presented. .By the Bench: Witness was : of opinion he had cashed a cheque drawn by! Sheath and Hume, about three, years ago, bat could not remember the signature. ■ Henry Hailbronrier, labourer, deposed that on the levelling of Monday, the 29th of May, be was in the company of the aocused ot Mr Syverston's shop, and saw the cheque produced. Also saw the accused endorse the cheque. Understood ■ that his name was Ernest J. Reid. Saw Syyerston give accused the watch and pipe and £8 9s in cash. 'Accused said Jhei cheque was his, and he had received it from Messrs Sheath and Hume for wages. -• ■■■■;••■ By Mr Skipper i Had known the accused for the last J six months' as ••Jimmy Eeid." '.showed him the cheque at Aohonga : on the 24tbofMay, Witness had lent accused some money and on the day he changed the cheque had asked him for payment,' After acbused got the money from Syyerston, witness received J6L Did not see the cheque signed. >.' ' , Frank Aloyosius Sheath, sheepfarmer, gave evidence that the accused hail been in his employ up till about six or seven weeks ago, Tbe balance ofiwagesdue wan' paid, the amduut being lGs which was paid by oheque on the Bank of Australasia, Master* ton. Had never given the acousod a cheque, lor £lB. Acoiised went under the name of Haskell when working for witness, but was also known as.Reid, Ho part of the oheque was in witness' handwriting. Mr 'Hume, bis partner, did not draw cheques for the firm, The handwriting was not Mr Hume's. Bj the Court: Was satisfied that the accused knew the Arm's signature. '. Douglas Moore Oraham, account, ant at the Bank of Australasia, Masterton, gave evidence regarding the presentation of the cheque produced: which had been rejected owing to the signature being unlike the usual Big-. nature, of Messrs Sheath and Hums, ■ ' Constable Darby gave evidence of the arrest of the accused at Carterton; Accused : on arrest denied having cashed the cheque, and said; it was cashed byayoungmannamed Holmes in Mr Syverston's store, and that he (accused) had told Holmes it was not good,' as,he; had : pioked:;up the cheque at Aohonga and had'signed it. Accused stated that he got his portion, 'a silverwatch,; and briar pipe andjthe boy Holmes got the balanoeof the goods purchased, i jThopipe and watch'were found in his possession. J j This was the case for the prosecu> tion. ~ 'r ■■''-

]'h reply to Mr Skipper his Worship said he considered there 'was sufficient evidence to send the case to a jury, and after being cautioned, the accused, through Mr Skipper.said that he would reserve his defence, Acciiße'd was'oomtmtted to take his trial at the next' 'sitting of the Supremo (Jourt at Wellington. Bail was fixed at aooused 'in £SO and two sureties of $25 each,