The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-01-18
Court II General Sessions.
Before Hon. Recorder Smith.
CHARGE OF FORGERY.


JAN Nv iliam r. Gollng was indicted for the Grim,
of forging the signature Of r H. Walsh Company,
the back Of check for $780, the American
Bank The Gilowingss synopsis Of the evidence taken
in the case.
Frederick Smith, examined by the District Attorney
deposed-I am bookkeaper for Schefln, Brothers Co.
druggists No. 40 William street, know defendant and
gave him. about the 18th June las. check the Anne
rican Exchange BarL statement. OF punt for pur.
ehases which cur 6rm were in the habit of making from
T. a. Walsh Company, surgical instrument makers,
check in question. The following Z the cheek
No. ! 44s. New York, June IL, 1864.
The American Exchange Bank.
Pay to the order of Messre. T II. Walsh Co three
Endorsed r. q. WASH Co.
ant about five years. cannot recoiect the date
when our firm arst pur'hassls Of !. II. Walsh Co..
George Walsh, member o! the firm Of T. II Walsh
Co since last March, deposedI have the check IL
question at the American Exchange Bank; have con.
yersed with the dfeneant IN relation to the Signature
On the hack, he acknowledged having endorsed it. and
p said he had g to So 80 the . q Wash
R. Goldrg, Jr (son Of the deiendant) at the time the
che.a was drawn Mr. GOldng never had any authority
10 sign the name Of II. Walsh Co. as far as know.
the proceeds Of the check question never paid 70
our firm, OF used to our benefit
Ceoss examined brolLer first engaged in the ba-
sness in November, 1883 de .endant had exclusive
charge OF the manufacturing department OF the bust
Esfs Of the firm; he foreman; young Goldng at
removed to stockpo the defendant wen. there 10
.upernend the business. Mr.. Br idy here produced In
sy dence lease from the wife OF the defendant to T. H.
Walsh Co.. oil the factory at Stockport free of remit
witness-f don't know what consideration was given
to hrs Goldng for leasing this factory without any
rent it took place before entered The 6rm first saw
the check 10 ton in the latter part Of Juoe al the
bank did not the deen. ant after yards till about
the first Of July when AMI my brother went Stock
forgery he said he had authority to sligo the name
Of our hrn; we remained at Stockport until the next
morning; and did not then dsmss the defendant from
our employ do not kr what the defendant did with
the amount OF tho check; between the 18th Of June
date Of check and the time Of his arrest in August
the defendant continued to receive money from the con-
Germ for his services up to August last VIM. r. Goling
Co. was The name Stamped on the Instruments manu-
ant has been brought against VIM. r. Golding Jr, my
SELF and my brother, as members Of the firm; Vim. r.
G9Sldins, u, i Is not Of age yet.
Bank, 6eposed-I have conversed with the defendant
about the check In question: he admitted to tina. he
pad! nad no right to use the name Of J. Walsh Co.,
thought he said he had authority to collect moneys for
them believed the check to be forgery and refund
ed the amount to Walsh Co.
lhaddsus IL Walsh, member OF the Or m Of r II.
Walsh Co., deposed had NO permission and
no right to sign the Of the firm the firm never re-
eeyed any benefit from the proceeds OF the note in
conversation had with the defendant about the t Of
July he acknowledged that he had NO authority to sign
the check and wished the matter to be passed oyer
ant to come down, but he paid attention 70 IT, then
vent to Stockport.
on tne crcsseIamnation OF this witness, Mr.. Brady
produced several letters in his handwriting 10 show
that the defendant wac interested in the firm Of T. H.
walsh Co., who had bound themselves to nay his
debts.
Edward 3. Coles, counsellor at law deposei-I know
the plaintiff and defendant remember conversation
with defendant touching his right 70 the name OF
Nakh 60. some time last summer have been his
counsel for many years mentioning q check he a,LAa
me ne mad not v" -"h' to use the name .! Walsh
20. 70 check i answered Tror Gods sake don't get
such an idea into your head = he then iaid ne SA5A
partner in the 6rm tried to explain TO him that he
in the wrong, as bis interest in the old arm was
sod out
The for the prosecution here closed The Re cord
animated that Of forgery not made 1t,
the defendant seemed 10 havs been acting under mis-
taken impression that lie mber OF the firm, and
the district Attorney deemed it proper to abandon the
case.
verdict-not guilty.
SenteRced-Patrick Carragh, tried twice, and on the
second occasion convicted of illegal voting at the last
election sentenced to ten days imprisonment in the
city pr,on.
The Court then adjourned