Thomas was accused of contradictory statements and deliberately lying about how the owed sum had been calculated from annual accounts. His first explanation was that he got the figure from racing calendars only, as all other documents had been destroyed. His second, that he had got the figure from both annual accounts and racing calendar’s.
Thomas answered that the sum of £10,600 was arrived at after consulting sheets that went back year by year to 1885, and that he consulted various racing calendars as way of confirmation.
It was suggested that Thomas was wealthy at the time he claimed his money was in the hands of Nathan, having purchased a house, put money towards a mortgage on the “Grand Junction Hotel” and owned two trotting ponies.
Thomas answered that he did not remember when he purchased the house, that his mortgage in the Hotel was small and that his ponies were kept for pleasure.
Thomas was accused of having had a separate bank account of his own prior to 1902, contradictory to his original declarations.
Thomas replied, that aside from a Preston Saving Account, he believed that he had no bank account of his own prior to June 1920. He later recalled having had banking accounts, but they had nothing to do with the betting business.
The most damaging of accusations fuelled by his stepmother was that he had forged the I.O.U… or that he had added words on to the card bearing the genuine signature of Nathan Mather. The former being the predominant accusation.
Mrs. Mather
“There had been no restraint exercised on the part of Mrs. Mathers advisors. No suggestion had been too monstrous and no stick too dirty, to be used on this unfortunate man!” – Mr. Cunfliffe
Mary Ellen Mather, described as a lady of obstinate, determined and stubborn character, gave evidence in court.
She claimed that a few days before Nathan’s death, he had discussed the disposition of his property with his son Thomas. She had overheard a little of the conversation, but Thomas told her afterwards that Nathan had discussed for the first time what he was doing with his property. After the death of her husband, she asked Thomas if Nathan had had any debts? he replied “No, Nathan Mather would not owe money.” A few weeks later, Thomas then asserted to her that Nathan had owed him £30,000. On another occasion at Thomas’s office in New Cock Yard, Thomas stated that Mr. Mather would not pay his mother’s doctor’s bills, that he had given Nathan £3000 for the New Cock Inn and that he had never earned a penny all the years he was at the New Cock, adding that “he ought to have been kept under a glass case.”
When the solicitor was ready to prove the will, Thomas suggested to her that they should break it, but she could not think of doing such a thing. Thomas had then asked her to withdraw from executorship. She refused. Thomas became rather annoyed and threw a card down on the table and said, “read that!”.
Mary asserted to the court that it was not the same card as the one produced in this case. It was larger, had red edging and didn’t have a date on it. She said she questioned Thomas on how Nathan could possibly owe him money, when he had told her when he was alive that Thomas owed him money. She said that when she pressed for the lack of a date, Thomas answered that it did not matter, it was the day they went to Longridge in November 1918. She reminded Thomas that when his stepfather had handed the business over, Thomas was to pay Nathan £300 a year, which he had failed to do. Thomas replied that the volume of business after that didn’t allow for it.
Questioned about her attitude towards Thomas Heap, she said that they had been of a friendly character. Mary Ellen said that her late husband had worn a gold watch and that she had gifted this and a guard to Thomas after his death as a gesture of kindness. Although, she admitted that she had taken the guard back later, on the grounds that it wasn’t left to him in the will.
She claimed to have not been aware that the gold items had been specially made by Robert Scanlon of Preston for Thomas Heap Senior, former proprietor of the Preston Borough race grounds. She had only known that her husband Nathan had worn it in his lifetime.
She continued that the I.O.U being produced in court was only seen in Mr Amblers office in 1923, although she had seen a copy of it in 1922. She closed her evidence after the Vice Chancellor pressed her for a definitive answer as to whether she thought Nathan Mather had written the I.O.U.
“I don’t believe he did.” She answered.
The Signature
Several of Nathans signatures were ‘enormously enlarged’ for the court and a total of three handwriting experts were called upon for their opinion.
Two of those men, Gerald Gurrin and Fred Smart believed the signature to be a forgery. Stating frequent breaks in the letters and the signature having the appearance of being drawn, rather than freely written and that was proof of falsification.
David Tempest from Leeds, also a handwriting expert, was of the mind that the signature was genuine. The cramped space on the card and broader pen used by Nathan Mather in comparison to a fine pen of which he was more used too, explains the slight peculiarity when side by side with known genuine signed cheques used for comparison. Mr. Tempest explained that the similarities between the letters on the I.O.U and the cheques was striking.
Manager of the Preston & Yorkshire Bank, Mr William Rooke Hannah matched the opinion of David Tempest. The late Mr. Mather had had an account at his bank. Mr Hannah confidently explained to the court that, thirty-four years of banking experience made him an expert in his customers signatures and that having seen the I.O.U in question, he hadn’t the slightest doubt that it was Nathan Mather’s autograph.
Brother-In-Law
John Maudsley, Thomas’s brother-in-law and clerk in the betting business gave his version of events for the court.
Speaking of the interview with Mr. Mather in Thomas’s office on June I2th, 1918 he said that he was present, but did not hear the conversation. Thomas took a lot of papers and books out of the safe, and Mr. Mather went through them and did a lot of writing. Then Mr. Mather came over and talked to him. Thomas then said. “Dad, will you come and sign this.”
Witness saw Mr. Mather go over and sign his name on a card, but witness did not see what was written on the card. But confirmed that the card was similar in general appearance to the I.0.U now in dispute. John said he never saw the card again until this action was commenced. After the card was signed Thomas put several papers in an envelope and gave them to Mr. Mather, saying “take these home and look them over.” Witness examined the I.0.U and said the signature was the handwriting of Nathan Mather. Cross examined, he said he was not especially interested in the signature of the I.O.U at the time, but he clearly saw the document and it was a card of the same size as the I.O.U produced. He continued that he had never seen Mr. Mather sign any document after that, but up to 1902 Mr. Mather signed all cheques sent out to customers so he was therefore, familiar with Mr. Mather’s signature.
He stated that Nathan Mather made no bets with the customers and never made out any accounts. He said that he particularly remembered the interview at which the I.O.U was signed, because it was the first time Mr. Mather had remained in the office for a long time. It was the only occasion on which Mr. Mather had gone through papers, and the only time he had signed any document. Witness said he had no personal interest in Thomas’s claim for the £10,600; rather the opposite, as his wife was legatee under the will. Mrs. Maudsley, sister of Thomas, also gave evidence to the effect that her stepfather never took any active part in the betting business, or in the licensing business at the New Cock Inn.
Also speaking for Thomas was a turf commission agent called William Sergeant spoke up for Thomas in court. He had known Thomas for thirty-three years and was once a racecourse book maker. He recounted that he had backed horses with Thomas nearly every day. He stated that he had never known Nathan Mather to have made a bet, or to have had any share in the business. Either the licensed house or the betting business.
So, what was Vice Chancellors judgement?
It was concluded that the onus had been on Thomas to prove that he was owed a debt by the Testator. He had failed to do so in the eyes of the Chancery Court and therefore, was not entitled to any sums from the estate of the late Nathan Mather. The Vice Chancellor expressed further that the ‘story’ Thomas had asked the court to believe regarding the business arrangement when he was just a boy, was “highly improbable”. Regarding the forged signature, the evidence was deemed inconclusive, but had it ever gone to a jury the Vice Chancellor believed that the verdict would have been ‘not guilty’.
The case was concluded on the 30th of June 1924 with the alleged I.O.U, had it been genuine, now worthless and Thomas was ordered to pay Mrs Mather’s court costs.
But, things didn’t end there for a defeated Thomas…See Page 3 to continue Thomas’s story.