BREEZE IN COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 250, 21 October 1919, Page 5

BREEZE IN COURT.

A SIGNATURE QUESTIONED. EXPERTS CALLED IN. SOME STRONG LANGUAGE. (Special to "Star.") HAMILTON, this day. Some strong language wae used .by counsel in tne Haiuuaon .Magistrate «s Court, yesterday, dunu« the htaring of a ca.se in wuich Jainee iiaiiKier, farmer, of Kuakura, sued Thomas K. iSnort, land agent, of Hamilton, for £62 10/, wnion plaintiff alleged Short had wrongfully I detained as commission on the saio of certain land. Mr. H. Gillies (for plaintiff) said that the agreement between the parties was Coat plaintiff should only be charged commission on equity, whereas defendant had charged it on the full price. Mr. Hunt, acting for defendant, eaid there was an original authority, on the form of Griffiths and Co., dated May 31, 1918, for the eale or exchange of the whole farm of 280 acres, at £36 per acre. Subsequently Mr. Bankier gave an authority for the sale only of 154J acres. On the first authority there was a stipulation that payment should be made on equity only, 'but on the second authority there was no euch stipulation. Mr. Gillies: With regard to the second authority, your Worship, my client alleges that it is a forgery. Mr. Hunt: Come! <My friend made a, similar generous ar.eertion in regard to another caee against my client, and then had to abandon the accusation. Mr. Gillies: Yes, because I hadn't proof on that occasion. Tli'ifi time I •have a eou-ple of experts to examine the signatures, and if nsy friend will consent to the two documents being submitted to these experts, and they state that they do not consider the second authority a forgery, then I will be prepared to my <*lajim. Mr. Hunt: Well, you had the second authority in your possession for about a couple of hours this morning. Surely that wae sufficient. Mr. Ciilliee said he had suggested thie course in order to save the time of the Court. Replying to his Worship, Mr. Hunt paid he would consent to the course suggested by Mr. Gillies. Mr. Gillies was preparing to take the documents for examination into another room, when Mr. Hunt objected. A grave charge, he eaid, had been made againet hie client, and he was not going to allow the documents out of his sight. The magistrate (Mr. H. A. Young) had by thie time left the Court, and Mr. Gillies asked the clerk to recall 'him. On re-entering, Mr. Gillies informed his Worship of the position, and eaid he would like his Worship's consent to the documente being examined in Chambers, in the presence of a. court official. Mr. Hunt eaid he would on no account consent to the documents leaving the court. His client's reputation wae involved, and he was not froing to allow the documents out of his sight. Mr. Gilliee: Surely my friend does not suggest that I am going to manipulate the signatures. .Mr. Hunt: Ordinarily between solicitors wlio know each other these little formalities would be waived, tout in the present cime I do not ccc any reason why the signatures cannot be examined in court. All the experts have to do is to examine the signatures and state whether or not they consider a forgery hag been committed. Mr. Gillies: I don't want my honorable friend to stand a couple of feet away and listen to all that passes between myself an-d the experts. Mr. Hunt: I am not going- to Tick any juggling with the documents, and I certainly won't permit them out of my sight. Mr. Gillies: As you please, you intuiting 'bn:te. Mr. Hunt: I will not take that, your Worsfhip! His Worship: What is that. I didn't her? Mr. Hunt: He called mc an insulting brute. b Mr. Gillies: And I repeat it. His Worship: You have no right to make such a statement. Mr. Gillies: I apologise for making such a remark in Court, your Worship, but I hold my private opinion still. His Worship consented to remain in Court while the examination proceeded. After the inspection of signatures throueh a magnifying glass, and comparing them with others by plaintiff. Mr. Gillies announced that the experts (Messrs. , C. Speight and Dv Flou) could not swear that the signature on the second document was a forgery. They I were very doubtful. Consequently, as ;the case would now merely be oath ■ against oath, and as there was a signature in existence, he was to abandon the case. J Mr. Hunt said he thought he owed it to his client, »od the Court owed it to I him :ilso, that something should be said regarding the grave accusation i made against him. Mr. Tassell, who was now the manager of Short's Hamilton branch had nothing whatever to do with obtaining the signature to the document, whicl was obtained by an independent salesmar named Wolf, who was present in Court t< say that he saw Bankier eign it. "I can not," added Mr. Hunt, "characterise to< strongly the impropriety of making sue) an outrageous charge when there is noi one tittle of evidence to support it, am I say advisedly that my friend's conducis quite improper." Mr. Gillies: It has happened twice bi the same individual. Mr. Hunt: "If my friend is the indivi dual referred to, it has certainly hap pened twice by the same individual. ' J similar charge was levelled at Mr. Tas sell by Mr. Gillies in a previous caec when it was not sustained in the slightcs degree and had to be abandoned." Ml Hunt added that he would like his Wot ship's permission to call Wolf. His Worship said he was satisfied wit: Mr. Hunt's statements. Mr. Gillies said that in ' his view hi conduct wr.s in no way improper. In th previous case his client Cmphaticall; stated that he had not signed a certaii document almost similar to the presen one. It was only after the greatest pros sure that he (Mr. Gillies) could persuad* him that he might have signed and tha the incident might have slipped liii memory. The client on that occasion wai a highly respectable farmer, and so wilt plaintiff in the present action, who cam< along with exactly the same thing. As it was his (counsel's) duty to protect tht farmer, he had called experts in this case. ' , , Ilia Worship said he would hove tf take the statement that the plaintiff had signed and that the authority had beer proved. Ho gave judgment tor defendant with £8 17/4coßtfc .„*_._