VERDICT OF GUILTY

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20491, 6 May 1938, Page 8

VERDICT OF GUILTY

FORGERY AND UTTERING FARM LABOURER FOR SENTENCE Charged with the forgery and uttering of a cheque for £9 10s, Thomas Christian Jensen (42), single, farm labourer, of Te Puke, was found guilty by the Jury In the Supreme Court, Hamilton, this forenoon. Accused was remanded for sentence by His Honour, Sir Michael Myers, until Tuesday next. Accused, who had pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr J. F. Strang and the case for the Crown was conducted by Mr J. R. FitzGerald. The facts were very simple, said Mr Fitz-Gerald. At Matamata on April 6. 1938, accused had bought two blank cheque-forms from a local business man. Later in the same .day, accused had cashed a cheque, bearing the signature of a well-known farmer of the district, with another Matamata business man in part payment of a purchase. The farmer mentioned had stated that the cheque cashed was not his and that the signature on it was not his either. Harold George Kealey, saddler, of Matamata, described the purchase from him by accused of two chequeforms. Accused said they were for one of witness' customers. Witness did not know accused. Jeremiah Gear, shop manager, of Matamata, gave evidence of accused's visit to the boot shop witness managed. Accused purchased a pair of shoes and two pairs of socks. The purchase was paid for by a cheque for £9 10s, signed by “ J. W. Finnerty.” The cheque was rejected by the bankthe next day. Shoes Not Tried On To Mr Strang, witness said accused had said to him in the shop that witness had previously cashed, through accused, a cheque of Mr Finnerty’s. Witness later found this to be correct. Accused had bought the shoes without trying them on. Joseph William Finnerty, farmer, of Peria, stated that the cheque for £9 10s (produced) was not hi'S, nor signed by him. Accused had formerly worked for witness. Constable W. A. Moore, of Matamata, gave evidence of arresting accused. No witnesses were called by the defence, and no address was given for the Crown. For the defence Mr Strang contended that, while the Crown had proved that there was a commission of forgery it had failed definitely to establish that accused was the guilty person. Summing up, His Honour directed that in the present case there was no need to consider the two counts of forgery and uttering, separately. In brief, the verdict should depend on the reliance placed on the two witnesses.