IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

1.0

I.I

2.2

■^ 1^

1.25 i 1.4

12.0

1.8

1.6

riluiuglBpinL

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

Wl)"'-" wt'*'

V Mf ^ M,

f^^

CIHM

Microfiche

Series

(iVIonographs)

ICIVIH

Collection de
microfiches
(monographles)

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions histor<ques

tkCk

Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original
copy available for filming. Features of this copy which
may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any
of the images in the reproduction, or which may
significantly change the usual method of filming, are
checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture cndommagee

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restauree et/ou pellicutee

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Caites geographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Uound with other material/
Relie avec d autres documents

□ Tight bindinp may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre cv de la
dijtorsion le long de la marge interieure

k — J

Blank leaves added during restoration may appear
within the text. Whenever possible, these have
been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutees
lors d'une restsuration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas ete filmees.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplementaires:

This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filme au taux de reduction indique ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X

L'Institi't a microfilme le meilleur exemplaire qu'il
lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet
exemplaire qui sont peut-6tre uniques du point de vue
b^bliograph que, qui peuvent modifier une image
reproduite. ou qui peuvint exiger une modification
dans la methode norma'e de filmage sont indiques
ci-dessous.

Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

I I Pages damaged/

Pages endommagees

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurees et/ou pellicut^es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages decolorees, tachetees ou piquees

Pages detached/
Pages detachees

□

Quality of print varies/
Qualite inegale de I'impressi

Showthrough/
ransparence

pression

□ Continuous pagination/
Pagination continue

□ Includes ir
Comprend

index(es)/
Comprend un (des) index

Title on header taken from:/
Le titre de I'en-tSte provient:

ivraison

□ TitI? page of issue/
Page de titre de !a li

□ Caption of issue/
Titre de depart de la livraison

□ Masthead/
Generi

que (periodiques) d ■ la livraison

22 X

26 X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24 X

28X

U'll

:et

de vue
e

LJon
es

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Legislature du Quebec
Quebec

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming ccntract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first ptige with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a irintad
or illusirated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain tfie symbjl —i^- (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too targe to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
requirftd. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce d la
gdn^rositd de:

Legislature du Quebec
Quebec

Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire film6, et an
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim^e sont film^s en commenpant
par (e premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le secorjd
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ol- d'illustration et en terminant par
la aernidra page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds 6 des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd 6 partir
de l'ang(3 supdrieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

tup: s hat 1 1

F'01GE;RY CaSE.

iHlc (iiiiiiiii if)iiiil) of Hiiuicrfhinailii

I >'.

ROBERT McCREADY

I'hk P^isi I'M.v I "-1 C niis M.

,-J

V H

SEATH FORGERY CASE

.:... a:.

Jiiililiiicut iij the ^ii|iciior ^ oiirt.

HE NOTES DECLAHED '[O BE FORGERIES

ACTION OF THE ONION BANK OF LOWER CANADA

^s.

ROBERT McCREADY,

msoiv^iissEiiD ■^xriTia: costs.

Dkau Sii{.

'l\\v interest tlini liiis Ik'cii tiikeii in t his case since it
(rtune l)eloi'e the Coin'ts (Civil itiid (.Viiiiiiuil). the eNtriioidiiiary
ellurts on the part oi" Mr. Ah'xaiider Seath and his (counsel, to
establish the •••enuineness oi' the Pronussoi-y Notes in ipiestion. and
the contradietorv sworn testinioiiv ol' the principal witni'sses
are of sneh ini])()itance to the e( niniercial pnhlie, that I deein it
proper, as well as an aet of jnstiee to in \ sell", to pnblish hei'ewith
It lull rerlxif'nii rejiort o!" the .Indiiiuent delivered in the Su[)erior
Court, on Satnrdax, the 1 Hh dav of Api'il last, hv His Honor
Justice Kainville, declaring the Note sued upon a Foi'gerv, w hieh
will, I trust, set at rest all further conllicting opinions in this
caune fi'h''Ur(., and place nie right in the regard of all honest

thinking men.

I am.

Yours respectfully,

KOBKRT M( UREAL) Y

MoNiHKAi,. 17th April. 188:!.

illUii

?e it

ijiry

1, to

and

'SHt'S

11 it

uith

'I'ior

oiior

liicli

this

>iiest

MONTREAL,

HON. JLSTICI'. lh\lN\ ll.l.i; l'Kis||,|N,,

1883.

Plaintiff Bues Defendants, Robert McCready
Bud Alexander Ueatb, on a note dated at
MoDtreal, 6(h July, 1882, payable at tbe Moi-
sons' Bank elx montbs cftei date, amountiog
to the sum of f 1,832 40, signed tiy Uobert Mc-
Oready and endorsed by Alex, ijeatb .

Defendant McCready alone pleaded to tbe
action. His defence was a general denial of
the signature on the note, and according to
law was accompaiied with an affidavit, deny-
ing the same.

Tbe only question to be decided In this case
la whether tbe note, the payment of which is
demanded uy plaintiff, bears the Blgna>
tore of defendant Hubert McOready. Tbe plea
of McCieady been prodnned, the burden of the
proof rests upon the plaintiff, and It Is ac-
cording to well established jarisprudeDC*^ and
the doctrine laid down by all authors that in
such ca es tbe plaintiff Is bound to make
proof much stronger that in ordinary cases.

Plaintiff examined a number of witnesses,
amongst others. Defendant McCready bimsf^lf,
iSeath, Heath's boobkeeper and the managers
oi tbe Union Bank and Molsons Bank.

Tbe proof estublisbes that tbe defendants
had for seuerai years past considerable trans-
actions together ; and that in the month of
October, 1880, Heath, being then in 6na <cial
dltticnltiea, obtained from McCready seven
accommodation notes, payable at different
dates, amounting in ail to more than $20,-
000.

These notes were in part renewed, at m«-
tori y, and part extinguished by notes which
the house of Robert McOready gave Seath In
payment of goods bought from Seath by Mc
Oready. In other words McOrendy gave
ISeath promissory notes for goods bought, and,
by this means, Seatl> met the accommodation
notes in part and renewed for tbe t-aiance.

McOready bad Heath give him in exchange
for these accommodation notes, notes of a
similar nature as an acknowledgment of tbe
transaction ,

Things continued In this way during 1881
and partoi 1882.

McCreadv pretends that all tbe aocotnmo-
d»t1on notes bad been extlngiilHbfd In May,
1882, with the exot-ptlon of one which be had
slgLed about tbe .>tb May payable at a later
date.

In June, 1882, defendants bad a difficulty
relative to a note for $2 600.

It is useless to enter Into the details of this
difficulty. It irt sufficient to say ibat Mc
Oready pretends that he understood he only
had signed tbe note for some six Lundred
and odd dollars, and tbe note at the time It
fell due WBH fouud to amount to $2,600.

Can tbiH be a mistake on the part of Mc-
Oready ? We know not. But It Is shown
that Seath admitted the no;e to the ex-
tent of $2,000 was an affair of his own, and
that McCrondv was not responsible lor that,
but only for the $<;20. At b11 events, the
note was paid .

The origin of tbe difiicui. . latlve to the
note In question in this case, go =1 back tottie
4th September, 1882.

According to the pretensions of McOready,
he (McCreadv) knew on this day that the
defendant, Seath, had forged his signature for
a considerable sum, and the following is what
happened : —

A note for $1 t\\ 20 became due that date
(4th SuptHJiiner, 1882), held by the Union
Bank here, payable at the office of the Mol-
scns Bant" . No provision having been made
for its payment at the Union Btnk, tbe note
wan duly presented at tbe Moisons Bank, as
McCready kept an account at said B<ink, upon
presentation of the note tbe officials of the
Moisons Bank thought it would be well to
notify McCready of this.

They sccon-llDgiy despatched a messenger
to McCready 's place of buBlness, and it appears
by tbe prool that Heath was already at Mc-
Oready'aotBce and had previously informed

McUreaJy of the fact tbitt such a note was at
the liank.

MoCroady, accoruInK to thu evidence, re-
pudiated the note, and ltunu>diately ISooth,
htB bookkeeper, wttut to the I ulou liank and
DOtltibd Mr. Manh, the caubler, of the fact
that the note wan not no autbctttic one.

Mr, Naah, the oaHhiur of the Union Uank,
actloK apoD the luthuatloD he had received
either from liootb orothuru of LIB employtet),
proceeded Immo'llately to McOready'8 otlice,
where he found ooath.

The evidence Ib a Uttln contiadictory, In-
asmncb aa Nanh doen not renit<nitier hnvlD«
seen booth and retoived from blui the Intl.
matlon that Liooth oPMertu to have glv(n
concerning the uoto. Hut, nixordlnii to all
olrcumstancoB, tbern it* no doubt that when
Nash lelt the Ixink to go to McC'ready'B he
was under tho liu^ letiHiuu tJint there was
Bomethlng Irre^ulcir reluttvu to the notrt.
Plaintiff has luhlnte^l upon the (act that Mc
Oready had reludt-d tormully, at biBOWu dlico
on this occsBlor, In aoFiwor to a (|acB~
tlon put to him by Natb, to stale
that the note whb (altu; out he b&UI
Bimply enougo to Nauh to let him
understand tbeit the note wivi not bin. And I
have no doutt tbut wbtu NubIi left Mc-
CreadyV, after beln^ promised by Scath that
the note would be met, 1 havu uu doubt, Itay,
tbat Nash w«b under the luipreH»lon thu note
was not all right.

Seath wail pteeent at this meeting between
McCr»iady and NdBb and bmrd the quoBtlou
which Nash dirtctly anked McUre'idy,and the
latter's auewet, vl/. , " See Mr. Heatb,' and It
was In reply to tbiw remark, iliou^b Bllghtly
evasive, that Seath anHWtnea that the note
would be paid.

The ntxt day the Manager of the Molsous
Bank interviewad the Uetundant, McUrendy,
In reference to the note then under dl^cuuni,
and showed him tnri-e other notes which buve
been fyled In tuls taupo.

I am convinced, according to the tvldenci,',
that defendant Immediately repudiated the
DOtes, and thut notwlthstao'ting that te did
not Ray they were lorged, Uo Bald sutiiolent to
leave Mr. Thomae and Mr Elliot, both olii-
clalB 01 the Bank, under the Imprt-Bfiou that
these notes were not signed by him, 'or if
this were not tee ri'solt of the convertiatiou,
what ^moant, then, the ijueKtlon of McCieady
to the Bank officiaiH : " Von have my slgna
ture here, compare them ?"

And If It were not regmding the authentic
Ity of these sigaaturer., why did Mr. Elliot go
and get a chtck of tbe Deleudant McUready,
to compare his slgnatute with tbe elgnaturts
on these notes ? Some of these notes have been
paid since ; there only remain thr«e unpaid,
which the Defendant McOready repudiates ;

one of them Is the note now In iinestion, the
other Ih In the posseeslon of the Molaont
iiank, and the Merchants' U»nk have the
third.

The proof made by plalntItT consists of the
depositions of Heath and I'ani, who boih
swear that the note In question was signed by
McCready In their presence.

I attach no importance to Heath's deposi-
tion, for if the note la forged, that Is his affair
—or It Is presumed to be— and It la bis inter-
est to conceal his guilt.

Ab regards i'aul, he awears the note was
Bigned In his presence, that is to aay, In an
adJolQlng room to that In which he was
working, and he took It up from the desk
niter It wnn signed, and when McCreaJy was
present. It there had been but one note ex-
changed between the parties, it would be
very dilticult to reject this testimony, UQleea
we tilievod Paul has perjured himeeif; bat
there have been so many transactions between
tbe P'lrties and eo many notes signed, that it
Id difficult for me to understand how it is
poeslble for Paul to remember specially that
tbe note In (juestiou had been signed in his
presence, wben he cannot swear the same
thing aa regards the otber notes.

'I'hire is no proof that he made any special
entry of this note, ai^d I am under the im-
preBKion that ho luuBt be mlntakeu.

As regardn the other two witnesses, liilltot
and Nattb, butu of thedj gentlemen had dis-
counttd McCready's notes and seen his sig-
nature at t'lret sight accepted the very signa-
tures that have been repuaiated as not being
UcCceadv's genuine signature.

But In ibelr depositions, alter having com-
pared tbe genuine signatures with the signa-
ture repnd ated,and txam'ned notable and im-
portant differences, they both seem to oe
under the Impression that there is a great
deal i>f doubt as to the authenticity of tbe
signature ou the note referred to. Besides
plaiutlll Las not tried to bring one single
witness familiar with McOready's signature to
make him say whether he thought or whether
Ue could swear that the signature on the note
In question was really McCready's signature.

Now hero Is McCready's proof ; It conalsta
of tbe depositions of two book-keepers. Booth,
his present book-keeper, who has been in his
employ lor several years, and Troutbeck, who
had been in his employ five or six years before ,
both consequently, are familiar with hla algna-
ture, and both awear la the most positive
manner, and without any hesitation, that the
signature on the note fn question is not Mc-
Cready's signature, and both go even so far
as to say that they think It would be impos-
aible for McOready, from the knowledge they
have of bis way of writing, to sign aa thia
note Is signed.

Konr other wltneiRefl have buen examined, i
who ure alBO perfei^tly familiar with Mc
Cready'e sIxDatnro from bavlDK neen It mai^y
times. Ula two brothers, also OoiiKton and
Mnl larky, all swear In the moat poHlttvo
manDer that the slxoatnre in i|ueRtlon In nnt
defendant's siKnatare, and they Rhow notiitilc
dllierencea which exists between the veritable
nlKnatnre of defendant an^ the one In i|iieH-

tiOQ.

In this case at least too genuine signatures
of defendant have been exhibited, and if we
proceed by comparing the writing, I do not
see how it can be poaslble fui any mlsiin(lt<r-
Btandin^ as regards the nature o> theHeKlgna-
tu'es. Four notes besides the one In qiiMHtlDn
in this case have been produced >iud repu-
diated by McCready. The signature on tbo
live notes were evidently dono by tbo Hume
hand and have such a striking reseiriblnnce
in them that one could aimont May (hey had
been lithographed. Uu the icutrary, In all
the veritable signatures of McCready, there
are dlflerences that are remarked In all gen-
uine signatures. The principal and notablo
dKTerences between the genuine signatures
and those repudiated, consist in tb« follow-
ing : In writing bis slgnatare, the defendant
McCready writes " Uobt." without lilting hlH
pen, and this Is invariable in all bis Rlgna.
tnree, except when his pen bad not enough
ink or else caught in the paper, which lu very
visible. In the repudiated diguatnre, the
letter " U " Is formed by two strokes of the
pen.

In the genuine signature the " M" is formed
without lifting the pen. In the repudiated
signatures the •■ M" is formed by i-i veral
strokes of the pen. In the true signatures
the marks under the small ■' c" In ■■ Mc" are
all made from left to right, /. '. starting from
the sidfc of " M" and tialshiug on the ^ide
of " c." On the contrary, in the slgnc *''reE
thai have been repudiated, these mai .■ if
all made from right to left, and ov s
stroke of the pen directly inclineii t<
the left aide, i. e. starting from the aidt
of the "C" and going to the sidt
of the ■> M." In the genuine aignaturas the
word "Cready" is written without lifting the
pen, and this invatiably. In the rejected sig-
nature on the contrary the pen stopped aftet
the letter *■ a," and then commenced a new
stoke of the pen to form the " d." The forma-
tion of the two last letters <<dy ' is also most
characteristic in the genuine signatures— it
never varies in its most essential character.
These letters are very dllVerently formed in
the rejected signatures lu the genuine
signatures there are, with one or two excep-
tions, a dot under the " t " in Uobt,, and there
are not any In the repudiated notes .

The plalntlii'rt connHel insisted on tbo (art
tbat (hero were (.onsiilerabledlllereDces In tbo
difltjrent genuine alKnatiireH of the defendant
McUroady. This fact U undeniable ; there
is perhaps not a man who slu'ns twice a HUna-
ture IdtM.ttrnlly tlio Hwrne. Tiiere are always
Rome (^llleri U''e.< wlilcli depend either on the
Ink, tin pen, the paper or the dlsponltlon of
the pcrfou w»in elk'HH or even upon the pi.i>l-
tlon h<' In III. I'.'it alter exaininlnt; and com
paring Hitentiv ly more t>\an thne hundred
Hirfiia'Ures ot tliM defeiKlant tbat are fyled In
th's case, on" Im easily convlncfd that they
have akog tl"r prominent characterHtld
r(«Ht!rab|ik(ire,< iind In thoNo the repudlnted
Higraturort eHsentlilly dllb'r.

The main -iMtln'tlve chitftcter of the de-
fendaut'M n|,/n'.turo In thiit tt i" of an irr««n.
lar hnrid, imd aomtltnerf trembllni/, while on
the contrurv tli.i dlrtlliictlvi" criaracter of the
repudiated siu'rmfn'en 1h thiit th"V are made
by a fteidv baud and by a perci^n havinu a
gdod knowi; (lk'c> of hundwiitln»<. 1 tind be-
sIdeH ill the III it of theno dllieroiires between
thu dUlereel piynatnren of doteudaut, the proof
that they are true ; 1 tiud, on the contrary,
In the rcaerahlancH of tbo repudiated algna-
tute:< t < oBcb other, the proof tbat they are
imitated. A Hluiilur view was taken by
ludK" Howell lu a celebrated case before the
Courts In Louisiana in a case relating to
the estate ol Inhn McDonoagh ; he expresped
htraaelf as fallows :— " All the witnesses
aaioe that no two genuine tilgnatnres of an
Ini'ivldnal are ever exactly alike, while some
of them make it appeiir tbat the onnsuai
ilmllarlty in this InstHnce can be caused on/.y
■)y tr,irin;/ — \H a_La Uep— I IS."

An expert, Dr. Hakcr Kilwarda, was examin.
id ; hn bad ph )toi?raphed aome of the genn-
ne algnaturea of the debmdant, and some of
:he repudiate i! nlkinatures and after examin-
ng thprto dHl»-r>'nt signatures, he la of opln-
on tbat the repudiated algriaturea, and among
:)tbera, the one In i|iipat1on In this case,
\re not the true aignaturea of the Defend-
*ot. [{eatdt.-^ this formal proof made by
wltneasea who know the ■tolendant's elgnature,
md that made by comparison of writings,
there ifl the one made by the witness Booth,
of the repeated admisaloua made by the
iefeu'iftiit Seatb, recogci/.log that the note
waa forged, liooth sweaia In eftrict that about
the ttb September laat, at the time^the first
dillicnlty relailug to tho-'e notes arose, Seath
recognl/.od ttiat the note that was then present-
ed by the Union B'tnk was falae, and that
later he recognized that there were notes
forged to the amount of about $10,000. An
attempt waa made to attack the credibility of
the witnesa Booth Counael weighed heavily
on the fact tuat Seath would not have admit-
ted tbat|the8e notes were forged .

I lee nuthlnx Improbable In theii«i nltulfi-
■ioni— i|ulte tha contrary ; II thtt uoIoh wurH
fora[0<1, tbore In uotliluK more UHtiiritl thna
that Noatb would rucoxnl iti the tact. For how
would It bt) poBHiblti fur htm, II the nntttrt
were rually torxed, to in^fttt iM( C^ready aa<l htit
bookkuepar believe they went Keuulue, ami
maintain thin faot In tbeir proMuncu ' Other-
wlae, bow explain the pruHenuu itf .'Seatb at
McL'retkiy'a at tbe very mom«iit ho Unow tbii
note would be preaeoted at tho UoUous IStnh,
and that there were no fuudn there with
which to [ny It ' Why HhDUld he bo tiiere ?
Why wait for Naah'fl arrival V Why prooilan
to pay It the next day? II the note weiH
Kenulne, he Hhouid not have been ao aaslouti
to see about tte HMitleuient V

There Id, aUo, In coutirm'itlon of the f<kc
tbat these ooteH were furled, MoUreitdy'i
letter, written k>th September, \Hh>, to th '
MoIboqs Ktuk, telllDK them ttiat apart from
three n itet< which be meutlona la bla letter an
beln^ K^i^uiiiei If there were others there were
forced notes. He said the same thlDK to
tbe I'uion B»nk, and bis Utter to tht

Moliona Hank even koo* further. He
writes tbat apart from tbe three notoH tbat
hii mentlona a* buloK K*>nult>a< *ll the
other n''«te8 tbat Heath pretended to have been
HUned by MoCready were forK«rlea. Mc
Uraady wan then very certain o( thla fac
stnrtt be took apon bimaelf to allirm It
HtroQKly. And tbe beat proof tbat be waa
not mlatekeu la that the result rontlra:H<l
the fact be aaaerted, and all other notfH apart
from tbose mentioned In tbe letter a^Keaulue
were repudiated and^are tbe notes now lyle).

It lu uoueceaaary lor me to enter Into more
det'lln on the pr )()(. It buiiiuea to aay tbat
the wtAfi '1 of the pri)]f fell apoQ plalntltl, and
not only did they not prove tbat tbe alKna-
ture on tbe note referred to was the sixnature
of UuO'raady, bat, oa tbe contrary, tbe latter
proved bityond all doubt that tbe Blxnalare
to iineatlon waa a lorded alttnature.

Pitlutltl's action Is, therefore, dlamiaaed
with costs.

Mtissra. U. H. Cramp, and W. U. Ketr,
g (J., for plalntltl; Messrs J. S. H«l|, Jr.,
and L. N. Benjamin, for tbe defendant.