IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I I, 2.2 ■^ 1^ 1.25 i 1.4 6" 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'. ROBERT McCREADY I'hk P^isi I'M.v I "-1 C niis M. ,-J I « i I Ai V H SEATH FORGERY CASE M .:... 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:!. r illUii r ?e it 1 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 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 Bdiately 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 renitf 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. \ >) I 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 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 <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 aath 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