THE ALLEGED FORGERY AT HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1755, 4 October 1883, Page 2

THE ALLEGED FORGERY AT HAMIL TON.

Mrs Quinn Acquitted. At the Supi cmc Com t, Auckland, on Tuesday, Annie Quinn was indicted upon a charge of forcing a cheque for £40 on the 28th of June. Mr 11. Williamson appeared for the Ciown. Mr E. Hesketh defended tthe prisouei.— Lsaac Coates, of Kirikiriioa, near Hamilton, farmer and contractor, deposed that he knew the prisoner, also her husband, Patrick, and her sou, "William Qmnn. On the 20th, witness paid William Qiiinn, (by cheque foi £3, the balance due to him). Had paid money by cheque to Patiick Quinn, but not .since Apul last. Nover paid him a cheque for £40. (Cheque produced.) The witness swoie that this document which pnrpoi ted to be signed by him did not boar his signatuie. The haudwiiting of the signatuie was similar, but the hand w.is much heavier. Witness was met by the accountant and cleik of the Bank of New Zealand, who showed him a cheque for £3 in witness's handwi iting. They next showed him the cheque for £10, but, tiiat was not signed by him. Witness then gave infoimation to the police. Cross-examined by Mr Hesketh, the witness said the piisoner's husband had wiitten to the local papers to the effect that witness w<is indebted to him. That was untiue. Witness wrote to the papeis denying the statement. —.l. F. White, accountant of the Bank of New Zealand at Hamilton, deposed to the cheque for £u haung been pu'sentod and cashed. Witness lefused to cash the other for £40, becau.se the signatuie Mas not like the piosecutoiV '•usual" signatuie.— -T. R. & Hatiick, a diapei in Hamilton, deposed that the piisoner came to his shop for two blank cheques which he sold her. As a precaution he wrote the name of the person wanting them on the opposite "butt." They weie askod, because they weie lequned by Patrick Qiiiun, her husband. In cross-ex-amination witness believed it wasapiaetice for contractois, to winch class P. Qmnn belonged, to deposit cheques u))on sending in tenders, which cheques weie rettuned thiough the Post Office. — Seigi-aut Me-(4ovein heaid of the prisoner as a person of honesty and straightforwardness.—Mr. Hesketh, in opening the defence to tbe jiuy, said the evidence would be that the piisoner could not v. Lite her own name, consequently she could not ha\e foiged the document, that thi< cheque was leceived by her tlnough the past, and as her hiisimid's n.uno was to it she might readily have suppo.sed it genuine. Heibeit Logic, Postmastei, deposed that the piisonei Used to deport and withdiaw money fiom the S.i \ ings Bank. Witness had lead letters foi piisoner. Undeistood that she could not icad or write. She signed with her mark. Never heaul anything against the piisonei's honesty.— Aichibald Scott deposed that lie had frequently read letters for her. He remembered the jnis.Mipr bringing linn a letter to read for her. It enclosed a cheque for £10. Witness lead the letter for her. It was addre-sed to hoi husband. She did not know how to act in getting the cheque cashed. He said as it was " payable to bearer" the bank would give hei the cash at once. Believed the prisoner could not lead or write. — William Fleming ga\ c similar evidence. — Mr Hesketh contended that it wa.s quite consisten with the evidence that the woman leceived the letter, being addiosaed to he husband, who was absent from thedistiict, found the cheque in it, and, without knowing it was foiged, piesented it at the bank. — His Honour having summed up the evidence, the iuiy lethed to consider theii veidict, and aftei a shoit delibeiation came into Couit with a veidict of " Not guilty."