SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XIX, Issue 2814, 9 May 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, May S. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Gresson.' His ILonor sat in the Court Chambers at 11 a.m. LAW PBACXITIOSEUS' ACT. 1801, AXD BE . A SOLICITOR. This was an application to make absolute a rule μ-zsj" granted by tho Judge on the previous day. calling upon the solicitor to show cause wlij he should not be struck off the roll. Dr Foster appeared in support of the rule. Mr Holmes, of the iirra of Thompson autl Holmes, centra. The following were the atVulavits upon which the case was founded.

We Thomas Smith Duncan and Andrew Jameson solicitors of the Honorable Court make oath and say

1. In October last we wore in.-trurtod by Mr William Xewton Millton of i'apamii road in the said district gentleman to prepare a conveyance to him of the equity of redemption "of C'has. Wesley Turner of I'apauui road aforesaid gentleman in certain property there situate for the sum of £-100 subject to a mortgage thereon for £GOO to the 6aid F. J. Garrick

2. That we applied to Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw solicitors for an abstract of the title of said property but it was ultimately arranged that they should leud us the deeds in lieu thereof which they did.

3. That some considerable time elapsed after we had received the said deeds before the said matter could be attended to during which time the same were placed in one of our safes in the room by mc tho said Andrew Jameson for safe custody and they were ultimately placed in the hauds of Michael Hart our managing clerk for examination.

And I the said T. S. Duncan say

4. That almost immediately afterwards the said Michael Hart showed mc the deeds and pointed out some of them in which there were errors in tho description of the property when I carefully examined the descriptions so pointed out to mc and satisfied myself that errors did occur and that requisitions on the title would be necessary and the same were accordingly prepared by the said Michael Hart and approved of by mc and sent to the said Garrick and Cowlishaw and shortly afterwards the title deeds were handed back to them at their request

Ami 1 the said Andrew Jameson say

5. That during some part of the above proceedings the said F. J. Garrick had as I am informed and believe been away at Sydney from which place he returned to Christchurch about the middle of February last after which time I believe he became unwell and was for some time confined to his house.

b\ That on the 15th day of April last being as I believe the first day on which the said F. J. Garriok returned to his office I received a letter from the said firm of Garrick and Cowlishaw hereunto annexed marked A with a message requesting mc to call upon him iv consequence of which I attended at the office of the said firm when the said F. J. Garrick said he was just going homo and pointing to a bag which he held in his hand said the deeds were there (meaning as I understood the said title deeds) and that he was taking them home because the said C. \V. Turner was desirous of examining the same with him.

7. That the said F. J. Garrick appointed with mc to meet him the next morning to examine the deeds but that being Chamber day I was unable to do so and we met as I best recollect and believe on the following day when the said F. J. Garrick on looking over the deeds pointed to an endorsement on a deed and said " That is the confirmation required from Crcsswcll " or words to that effect and that he the said F. J. Garrick would join in the conveyance to our client to confirm the title or to rectify the mistake but I do not remember the precise words he used and 1 then requested the deeds for my own perusal when he handed them to mc for thai purpose.

8. That on Thursday the 18th clay of April last I had an interview with the said W. N. Millton when lie asked mc whether the errors in the title deeds had been rectified or words to that effect and I then stated that I had received the deeds from the said F. J. Garrick for examination aad narrated the conversation I had held with the said F. J. Garrick as in last paragraph mentioned and I said I should wish to go over the deeds carefully myself and should also like the said VV. N. Millton to examine them with mc.

y. That ou Friday the l'.Hli day of April instant the Raid W. N. -Millton ciime to my chambers ami we proceeded to examine the said title deeds and in examining the deed of conveyance by the said F. J. Garrick to the said C. W. Turner hereinafter mentioned the said W. N. Milltou said that we must look particularly for " that ten feet " nieaning ten feet which he understood he ought to have but to which he imagiucd no title could be given and on looking at the plan aud examining the linkages and calculating the number of feet such linkages gave I said to the said W. N. Millton that it seemed to mc that he would have all he was entitled to within six inches at which the said \V. N. Millton seemed somewhat surprised. 10. That the said MrW. N. Millton drew my particular attention to the deed of conveyance by the said F. J. Garrick to the said C. \V. Turner which I was then examining and pointed out that the portion of the plan marked " Walton and Brown " asked if alterations could be made in a deed after signature as lie did not understand how Walton and Brown's name could be in the plan It was perfectly right that Walton aud Brown's name should be in the plan but his putting the question drew my attention more closely thereto and I thereupon called in the said Michael Hart and requested him to examine the deeds with mc when he in examining the deed of mortgage Brownell to Garrick of Ist June 1870 being one of the deed 3in respect of which the said -requisitions of title had been sent said " there is some alteration here" and I at the same time carefully examining the plan on the conveyance Garrick to Turner discovered an erasure in the plan on that deed of the dividing line or a portion thereof between the two portions of the section contained in the mortgage which the said Michael Hart was then examining and to the best of my belief I wrote in pencil on the margin of the deed of conveyance opposite the plan " some erasure here " that I then looked with the said Michael Hart at the said deed of mortgage which he was examining when I noticed an alteration in a word which seemed to have been " northwesterly " and then read "north-easterly" That the word north-easterly is part of the description of the dividing line mentioned in this paragraph.

11. That the said two deeds together with the remainder of the title deeds were placed by mc in the safe in my room on the same day as I received them from the said h\ J. Garrick and until 1 took them out for the purpose of examining them with the said W. N. Millton I have no doubt whatever that they had remained uudisturbed.

12. That on discovering such alterations I immediately on the same day caused the register books at the Deeds Register Office at Christchurch to be inspected by the said Michael Hart for the purpose of ascertaining whether the said deeds agreed with the registered copies thereof and on being informed by him that they did not agree 1 forthwith ordered office copies of the said deeds from the said Registry and I caused certified copies of the original deeds theu in our possession to be be made in our oince which said ollice copies are hereunto annexed marked B and C. 13. Thsit on Monday the 22: id day of April last T wrote to the Haid Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw declining to accept the title on the ground of snch alterations and informing them that my firm had decided to bring the matter before the council of the Canterbury La.v Society a copy of which letter marked B is hereunto annexed.

14. That on the same day Mr Cowlishaw of the said firm came into my room bringing with him a letter hereunto annexed marked E denying that the deeds had in any way been altered since they were submitted to us and I then at Mr Oowiishaw's request showed him the deeds and pointed out the said alterations remarking '-There is no doubt Cowlishaw as to alterations and erasures

being in the deeds how they came thorn • matter for explanation r/Jr r ' n appear to us of such a character a*„ X? 15. That the said Mr Cowli ß h aw thlltl made some remark a.s to slander of titlo I i as to its being a question whether we IS throw up the purchase when I said We i prepared to take all responsibility a * T slander of title and that the matter «i° of a very grave clKiractmnvolvingaorimi charge for felony and that we were o", anxious that the matter might be sifted ,» the perpetrator discovered The' «aid M Cowlishaw was meanwhile examining t h' deeds and office copies when I a«ram remarks that there was no doubt as to alterations im erasures and he said lie knew nothing a C it it was Garrick"s matter Garrick siid h was prepared to swear that no alterationsS erasures had been made He then laid down the deeds ami left the room. ° Wn

IC. And \Ve the said T. S. Duncan and Andrew Jameson say : That on the samt day we laid the matter before the coiiucil f the Law Society when' they advised that U-« matter should be brought before this hone able Court in the usual way of which advice we immediately informed the said Meaan Garrick and Cowlishaw.

And I the said A. Jameson say 17. That on Tuesday the 25th day of Anril 1 delivered up all the said title deeds to Mr Salter a clerk of the said firm of Garrick and Cowlishaw in obedience to an order ehown by him to mc.

18. That subsequently thereto and ns I best recollect I believe on Friday the '>6th day of April 1 went personally to the Deeds Registry Office aud in the presence of tho Registrar Mr Joshua Strange Williams in. spected the recorded copies of the said two deeds when in carefully examining the plan on the recorded copy of the conveyance Garrick to Turner it appeared to mc "as if the dividing Hue mentioned in paragraph 10 had been tampered with.

And the said T. S. Duncan and A. Jameson say

10. That we received from Mr Holmes of counsel for the said F. J. Garrick in this matter a communication signed by the said F. J. Garrick and made to us we believe in consequence of a suggestion from Dr Foster our counsel in the matter that possibly an explanation might be afforded which would obviate the necessity of bringing the matter before this honorable Court which said communication is hereunto annexed maiked P 20. That we have no wish to disbelieve the said F. J. Garrick but it is evident on tho face of tho deeds therein and herein referred to that the same have been altered and as we verily believe during the enquiry by u 3 into the title to the said property. 21. That no alteration or erasure has been maue in the said deeds or either of them by us or either of us and we verily believe that no alteration or erasure had been made in the said deeds or either of them by any clerk in our office.

' We humbly submit to the Court that under the circumstances herein set forth wo cannot consistently with our professional duty withdraw the matter from enquiry by this honorable Court And we further submit that the same cannot satisfactorily or completely be investigated unless the proper officers from the Deeds Registry Office, and all parties concerned in this enquiry are examined viva voee before this honorable Court. I Michael Hart of the City of Christchurch in the district aforesaid articled clerk to Thomas Smith Duncan of the firm of Duncan and Jameson of Christchurch aforesaid solicitors make oath and say as follows :— 1. That in or about the month of February last I was requested by the said Thomas Smith Duncan to examine into the title of the said Francis James Garrick and one Charles Wesley Turner to portion of It. S. 148 in tho Christchurch district with a view to preparing the requisite deeds in favor of William Newton Millton of the Papanui rpad ia the district aforesaid gentleman to whom I understood the said property was sold.

2. That I examined some of the said title deeds and found errors in the description of the land as stated in some of tho said deeds.

3. That I thereupon compared some of the said deeds with Mr Edward Mainwaring , Johnson clerk to the firm of Messrs Dunqan aud Jameson and with Mr Tully the engrossing clerk of the said firm with a view to verify the existence of said errors and immediately thereafter showed some of the said deeds to the said Thomas .Smith. Duncan who compared same with mc <'■''■.' 4. That 1 drafted requisitions founded on said errors aud tbe same were approved by the said Mr Duncan' and forwarded to the office o£ Messrs Garrick and Cowliehaw.

5. That when the said requisitions which are hereunto annexed and marked Wwi?re so drawn and engrossed the alterations now appearing in the same did not exist. G. That under date the 24th Februarylß72 appears the following entry in my iftrk book. Turner and another to MiltonPerusing title deeds herein handed , to us fry Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw 17 in nutaber when we found several important defectein the description. Drawing requisitions thereon. Letter and attendance on Meafl G. and G. therewith.

7. That on the 27th day of the said month of February Mr Charles Edward Salter clerk to the iirm of Garrick and Cowlishaw came to the office of the said firm of Duncan aud Jameson aud into my room there and having stated that he had come about the objections to the title first examined the deeds hipiself and then partially and only cursorily #ith mc.

8. That the first objection in the requisition was admitted as correct and on. Mr Salter's calling my attention to the language of the third paragraph of the requisitions I in his presence altered the same and initiated it as now appears. . 9. That it was then admitted and agreed between us that a confirmation would be required from Mr Brownell and the saw Charles Edward Salter then left with the intention as I verily believe to acquaint Mr Garrick with the result of his examination. 10. That the deeds were handed over» the said Charles Edward Salter on the day last mentioned and he gave a receipt for 1' deeds endorsed ou the draft of tho said requisitions and that on the same day as I believe I was informed by the said Charles Edwara Salter that they (meaning the said firm & Garrick and Cowlishaw) could not obtain confirmation from Mr Brownell who I" nd( r stood was in the Fijis and the said Edward Salter then stated that the P"* 35 '" land to which no title could only about ten feet and was used as sw riage way. i<v»ntr--11. That under date Tuesday the twemj seventh February 1872 appears the louu ing entry in my said woik book— la ™~~- pk Another to Millton attending Hubstom* and Cowlisbaw'e clerk going 0Q when it was admitted that tbelast fl*™ o u contained in the requisition* . „"„ met and we were to s<!o our client wow--12. That the last objection tioued refers to a confirmation by W » "la. That I subsequently had• tion with the said Thomas bmith im and William Newton Millton as to "'L d ten feet alleged by the said »«£«*& Salter to be the only portion which, a confirmation by for Brownell wte nt £ t jt William Newtuu Millton insisted » ffo was considerably more than ten .*"* ° in were unable to decide as the the hand-of Alt-am. Garrrck » n « J3J firm of 14. That I uudoretood that the WKl»^ th Garrick aud Cowlish.-iw were »JJj£ d ae my.said objection to the land so required to be confirmed byW Thomas Turner Brownell as afores* , that the purchase could n otbe unless the said William * c f™™. 1 hepS r willing to accept compenaat.onfor « g d eel of land to which as I understood was not to be made. , bea« n ? showu to mc marked A. m

letter refers indicated by the said Charles £S Salter as "the ten feet and :u T -SSvTto the parcel of land ref-rad to m Sat of tbe K W mUons wluch ilie ni I t - al Tbatl™eiieve the said Andrew Jameson Mr'Garrick in pursuance of the said f»« but I had no conversation with him as the result of his interview with the said SLncis James Garrick nor further as to the ffpr until the morning of Friday the mueth d»T of April instant when the said Mr JSeeon called mc into his room where the M William Newton Millton was and I then 64 that he had the title deeds before hfm *th the said William Newton Millton and rtftt they appeared to be examining them. IS That I was then asked about the said jpijs and on looking through them aud fmeriallT at the original of a certain deed ft mortgage bearing date the first day of Tnne one thousand eight hundred and venty and made between the said Thomas T nr ner Brownell of the one part and the said Francis James Garrick of the other part of the said B.S. 148 I said '• I don't see my nancil mark in the second description " and then stated my belief that the word " northeasterly " which occurs a second time in the second description had been altered meaning ♦hat the said word had been altered since thesaid deed was in my hands before. 19 That I afterwards proceeded to the Deed's Registry Office and on comparing the description of the second parcel in the said deed of mortgage in the last preceding paragraph of this my affidavit mentioned with fhe recorded copy thereof found this discrepancy viz. that the line which in both recorded copy and in the original is stated to measure eight chains seventeen links in the original deed then and at the time of my go last examining the said deed as aforesaid stated as extending in a north-easterly direction while in the recorded copy it is stated to extend in a north-westerly direc--20. That the word north-easterly occurring in the second description of the said original deed of mortgage appears to mc to have been altered from what was originally north-wes-terly. ~21. That the alteration of the word northwesterly to the word north-easterly referred to in the last paragraph hereof is the part of the original deed of mortgage referred to by mc When I stated that the deed had been altered on the 19th day of April instant. 22. if the said word now appearing as north-easterly in the said deed of mortgage had "been so written at the time the deed was signed and registered no confirmation by Mr Brownell would in my opinion have been necessary. 23. That no alteration or erasure whatsoever has been made by mc in the deeds examined as aforesaid or in any deed or document connected with the title.

I Edward Mainwaring-Johnsou of Christchurch in the district aforesaid clerk to Thomas Smith Duncan and Andrew Jameson of Christchurch aforesaid barristers and solicitors and known as the firm of '* Duncan and Jameson " make oath and say

1. That to the best of my belief in the month of February 1872 I was called upon by MrMichael Hart articled clerk to Thomas Smith Duncan to examine aud compare the description and plan of a certain portion of B. S. 148 described and delineated in and on a deed purporting to be a mortgage made between one Biownell and one F. J. Garrick both therein described.

2. That I and the said Michael Hart thereupon proceeded to compare the plan and description in" aud on the said deed contained and delineated and found that the ; plan disagreed with the description or particular in that the lineipurporting to measnre eight chains erenteen links shown on the plan as Priding the parcels colored respectively pink and green extended north-easterly at a „. right, angle from the North road whereas the deed described the said line as extending in a north-easterly direction and f .he words "north-westerly" as referring to the said line then existed unaltered or in any way tampered with in the said deed of mortgage.

3. That during the month of April about to the best of my belief on Saturday the 20th, I was again called by the said Michael Hart to examine and compare the said deed .of. mortgage and I then found that the words "nortu-westerly" as referring to the said line measuring eight chains and seventeen links and dividing the parcels of land in the rlast paragraph hereof mentioned and referred to had been altered by the letters "ea" having been writteu over the letters " we " at the "beginning of the word " westerly" and the said dividing line measuring eight chains seventeen links was then correctly described.

4. That the alteration as above mentioned had been made between the first and second r times I compared and examined the said mortgage. 5. That Mr Tnlley the engrossing clerk to the said firm of Duncan and Jameson was present both times the said deed was esamiued by mc with the said Michael Hart and that the deed of mortgage now referred to by mc was the one which was also compared by the said Michael Hart with the said Mr Tulley on each occasion.

6. That I have made an accurate copy of the original of a deed purporting to be ;a conveyance of part of K.S. 148 and made between one Turner and one F. J. Garrick I)6th therein described .and which is hereunto annexed marked X.

7. That I h*ve carefully compared the 6Skl copy with the original thereof and can swear that the same is a true copy thereof. : ""!>. That no alteration or erasure whatsoever has been made by mc in the deeds so examined as aforesaid or in any deed or 4ocumeat connected with the title.

I Charles Tulley of Christchurch in the PtOrince of Canterbury in the district aforesaid clerk to Messrs Duncan and Jameson of tbe same place barristers and solicitors make oath aad say—

1. That in or about the month of February last I- was asked by Michael Hart articled clerk to Thomas Smith Duncan to compare fte parcels in a certain deed he then showed "OK with the plan thereon to see how far I «»ld make them agree When 1 found the ' Ascription would not agree with the plan o*thg to a mistake in the word "north'f&terly " which should have been " northeasterly." ■ 2. That at the time I so compared the dc***s*ion in the said deed with the plan Jjweon there was not to the best of roy ratfwledge and belief any alteration or "flSßtu«-in the description. , _ ?, That in the month of April I was shown f of mortgage bearing date the first day ' 1870 and made between one Thomas Twner Brownell of the one part and one _*raßcis James Garrick of the other part by . **,«art in which deed the description of *e£percels agreed with the plan thereon but .JgMhe word " north-westerly " in the said . Inscription had been altered so as to read ' iK>rth-«isterly." ' at * uave made an accurate copy of of the deed of mortgage afore*..W**uicb. is hereunto annexed marked Y. p.; That I have carefully compared the j.sud copy with the original thereof and **& strear that the same is a true copy hereof.

6 - That no alteration or erasure wbatsohas been made by mo in the deeds so gained as. aforesaid or in any died or ■«ocument connected with the title*. »j" c following is a statement handed to STS Duncan and Jameson by Mr Garrick's J counsel, 31 r Holmes, signed by'MrGarrk*:— . •Uβ xay departure for"Sydney in the latter «Wof October IS7I I left the deeds relating T, l ne property in question in one of the f !s?■■ ln m 7 officG On my return iv the end of February 1572 I learned that SW.had been delivered to Messrs Duucan Jamtson in my absence and were then . fF* possession. tie crlearneti that tllc completion of k'' i( * been awaitin X m J a rrival " tfon T was some error hl thc dcscri l v cert.. A . then sent for the deeds and found '^^Wp-" cil marks indicating errors in two . "Pti&ns. Istly in the mortgaie Hrownell oa the tenth line from the" bottom of JSL-γ - mdi cated that the word south----/**JMB- wrong 2udly that tbe con-

veyance byme to on the twelfth line from the bottom of the -ml i.-,ire that the word "south-westerly"

t,e -SMmh-easterly " and on the Inst i''W"t the i>ti(l page that the word " easterly" should be " westerly" I then sent Mr Salter one of my clerks to the office of Duncan and Jameson to see Mr U.nt and ascertain the exact nature of the errors as I could not quite understand what were the errors complained of Not being able to understand the reply 1 sent him down a second time and received from him as Mr Hart's reply that the only matters were those underlined in pencil and marked in the margin and before referred to 1 then put tho two deeds on which the errors were referred to with the residue of the title in the safe aud they so remained until I was taken ill on or about the March A day or two after I was taken ill Mr Salter called to see mc as to auy commissions I had for the office when I asked him to bring home the bundle of deeds relating to the matter in question as I thought that I could look into the matter as I sat in bed When he brought them I was too ill to look at them and they were placed on a table in my bedrooom till I got well enough to be removed to another room to sit up in an arm chair.

When I looked at the deeds in question and examined the errors noted by Mr Hart and also the prior title I came to the conclusion that a confirmation by Cresswell would absolutely cure the error as to one parcel and that by myself joining in the deed to Millton the error as to the other description could be cured' as the property has been sufficiently conveyed by Browneil to mc.

I accordingly prepared a deed of confirmation by Cresswell at my own house and sent the draft to the office by Mr Salter with the mortgage from Brownell to mc with instructions to endorse such confirmation thereupon.

This was accordingly dono and Mr Cresswell came to my own house and signed it. On my return to my office after my illness I wrote a letter of 15th April and subsequently saw Mr Jameson and requested him to call at the office and see the confirmation by Cresswell before I stamped or registered it He said that he would call that.day on his return from chambers but he did not call for two or three days after when I showed him the deed which he said appeared all right but he would like to look at the whole of the deeds again.

I gave them to him and heard nothing more of the matter till Duncan and Jameson's letter of 22nd April.

I solemnly declare and am prepared to swear that until my return to the province from Sydney I was wholly ignorant of the existence of any error erasure or interlineation in any of the said deeds and after my return was not aware of any errors whatever except those indicated in the margin of the two deeds in question by Duncan and Jameson's clerk.

I did not know of any other errors till the receipt of Duncan and Jameson's letter of 22nd April when Mr Cowlishaw inspected the deeds at Duncan and Jameson's office.

The alleged alteration and erasure were not made by mc neither have such deeds ever been touched with ink or pencil by mc or anybody else to my knowledge or with or by my sanction approval or instruction except for the purpose of endorsing the said deed of confirmation executed by Cresswell.

Oα or about the 25th April when I received the said deeds from Duncan and Jameson's I showed them to my brother by whom they were engrossed He at once stated his impression that the erasure in the middle line in the plan had been made by him at the time of engrossing the deed and before registration but the alteration in the other deed had not beeu made by him I have enquired of all my clerks who deny that such or any alteration in the said deeds has been made by them at any time.

As to the erasure I would observe that there are two simultaneous deeds the conveyance to Turner and the mortgage from him to mc and that the plans in each are intended to be identical aud that in the mortgage no line whatever is indicated where the erased line appears in the conveyance to Turner This proves that the person who engrossed the mortgage observed that the line was erased in the conveyance.

Further that Mr Cowlishaw on searching the registry finds that the erased line is shown on the register as a colored Hue whereas it is a faint ink line in the original deed It also appears as if au attempt had been made to wash out this colored line in the books of the registry office.

I would also point out that the existence or non-existence of the line in the plan can in no way affect the description of the land conveyed Its existence on the plan is purely a clerical error.

The fact also that all the other errors have been carefully noted by Duncan and Jameson's clerk and no note was made as to the mistake in the part of the description complained of as altered is strong evidence that the present charge must be a mistake.

I would also point out the uselessness of the alleged alterations as the land in Brownell's mortgage to mc is well described both by plan and description notwithstanding the original mistake.

The plan alone being strictly accurate would pass the land.

The language of the description irrespective of the plan would also pass the land notwithstanding such mistake.

The words originally were " extending back therefrom {i.e. from the North road) in a north-westerly direction in a rectangular block" and in order to give them effect they could only be held to apply to a line extending back from the road in a direction at right angles to the road (i.e. north-easterly) the words north-westerly being held to be surplusage. F. J. Gakrick. 29th April 1572. In further answer the following affidavits were filed by Mr Garrick :— I Francis James Garrick the above named solicitor make oath and say as follows :— 1. I have read copies of the several affidavits of Thomas Smith Duncan Andrew Jameson Michael Hart Edward MainwaringJohnson and Charles Tulley sworn and filed in this honorable Court in this matter. 2. I solemnly swear that the imputation attempted to be thrown upon mc or my character by the said several affidavits that I made any erasure or alterations in any deed or deeds therein referred to or caused the same to "be done or was party or privy to the making thereof at any time whatsoever is wholly and absolutely untrue. 3. Prior to the receipt or Messrs Duncan and Jameson's said letter of the twentysecond day of April now last past I was wholly ignoraut of the existence of said alteration or erasure in the said deeds and 1 swear that the said alteration and erasure referred to in the said affidavits were not made by mc and that the said deeds have not uor has any one of them at any time ever been altered or any erasure whatever been made by mc or by any other person with my knowledge sanction approval or instructions.

4. The facts in relation to the various matters alluded to in the said several affidavits are as follows :—By deed bearing date the first day of June one thousand eight huudred aud seventy Thomas Turner Browuell conveyed to mc by way of mortgage registered in the office for the registration of deeds as No. 291 , .Hi '"two parcels of land therein described for the purpose o£ securing the payment of the sum of one thousand one hundred pounds and interest as thereiu mentioned By deed dated the twenty-fonrth day of January one thousand c i trh t li v udred and .seven ty-oac a net registered iv the office for the rejristiation of deeds as So. 305i>r> in exercise of the power of sale therein implied aud in consideration of eight hundred and fifty pounds I sold and conveyed to Charles Wesley Turner the principal part of the property comprised in the said mortgage by Brownell to mc and by deed bearing date the twenty-fifth day of January one thousand eight hundred and seveuty-oae registered in the office for the registration of deeds as Xo. 30.VJ8 the said Charles Wesley Turner conveyed the said lands to mc by wav of mortgage for the purpose of securing payment of the sum of eight hundred pounds and interest thereon as thereiu menmentioned.

5. That on or about the. i>; :i <lnv of August one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one the said Charles Wesley Turner agreed to sell to William Newton Millton in the said affidavits mentioned the same lands and hereditaments at the price of one thousand pounds and I also agreed with the said William Newton Millton to allow the sum of six hundred pounds to remain owing to mc upon the security of the same lands with the option to him of paying off the same at any time upon giviug mc three months notice.

G. During: my absence from the colony I am informed aud believe that Messrs Duncan and Jameson applied for au abstract of title of the said property but that witli the view of saving Mr Turner the expense of the preparation of an abstract my partner Mr Cowlishaw cousented to lend them my title deeds to enable them to examine the title aud that ou or about the first day of November one thousand eight hundred and seveuty-oue they were accordingly delivered to Messrs. Duncan and Jameson's"clerk.

7. The said deeds remained as I believe in the custody of Messrs Duncan and Jameson from then until sonic time in the latter end of February last past.

8. On or about the twenty-fourth day of February last past I received the requisitions on title referred to in the affidavit of the said Michael Hart and as the errors therein alluded to were not particularised I sent my clerk Mr Salter to ascertain their exact nature and to obtain the title deeds On looking at them I observed that the alleged errors in the descriptions were noted in the margiu. but I did not understand them as I thought the bearing of the North road was correctly stated I accordingly sent them a second time to Mr Hart for au explanatiou when my clerk informed mc that Mr Hart stated that errors noted in pencil on the margin of the deeds were the errors alluded to in the requisitions and that the bearing of the North road was south-easterly and not south-westerly I then put the whole of the said deeds iv a safe in my office until I could look into the same fully as I was then very busy with pressing matters of business.

9. The several pencil writings on the said several title deeds remain on the said deeds as they were when I received them from Messrs Duncan and Jameson except that the words " some erasure here" which are upon the conveyance by mc to Turner opposite to an erasure on the plan thereon which I believe are in the handwriting of Mr Jamesou and have been since written by him I positively swear that there was no pencil on other writing whatever in the margin of the said mortgage Brownell to mc indicating any error in the deed as regards the word northwesterly alleged to have been altered.

10. The only mistake in the said deed of mortgage from Brownell to mc pointed out by the said Michael Hart's pencil writing is as regards the words south-westerly and the said Michael Hart has underscored the said word in pencil and written in the margin '• Wrong M. H."

11. Some other similar mistakes in the other title deeds were noticed on the said deeds in pencil by the said Michael Hart but as I have already sworn he did not draw attention to any mistake in the said deed of mortgage from Brownell to mc other than as regards the said word '' southwesterly" aud this statement is corroborated by the said requisitions on the title which say " the above error occurs in the mortgage T. T. Brownell to Garrick but there are other grave errors as well in the description perpetuated down to and including the mortgage Turner to Garrick which will necessitate a confirmation from Browuell and Garrick to be executed an<l haudedover with the title" The words " the above error" allude to au error in the description of the laud contained in the conveyance of tenth October one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five by Cresswell to Brownell and upon reference to that deed I find the only mistake therein is as regards the word 4i southwesterly " which mistake was noted in pencil in the margin by the said Michael Hart and his initials M. H. placed opposite thereto Again the requisitions refer to other grave errors in the description of the land perpetuated down to and iucluding the mortgage Turner to Garrick I admit there are one or two other errors of trifling importance perpetuated down to and including the mortgage Turner to mc but the mistake as regards the error ■'north-westerly" which it is alleged has been lately altered to north-easterly does not occur in any other of the title deeds nor is it perpetuated down to and including the said last mentioned deed of mortgage.

12. When I understood the objections to the title raised by the said requisitions Iconsuited with my partner Mr Cowlishaw and drew his attention to the mistakes in the description and after deliberation we agreed in opinion that notwithstanding the mistake the property was sufficiently identified and passed by the deed and strictly speaking no deed of confirmation could be asked for or demanded but that as Mr Cresswell was in the province and his signature could be obtained it would be better to obtain from him a deed of confirmation.

13. I accordingly prepared and obtained the execution of such deed of confirmation and on the fifteenth day of April last I wrote to Messrs Duncan and Jameson a letter a true copy whereof is hereunto annexed marked "A,"

14. Some few days afterwards Mr Jameson called at my office and I showed him the deed of confirmation and he said "it appears all right, but I should like +o look through the deeds again " and I gaid "very well" and gave them to him.

15. I submit that the matters mentioned in the twelfth thirteenth and fourteenth paragraphs of this affidavit further corroborate my statement that no objection was ever taken by Messrs Duncan and Jameson or the said Michael Hart-in respect of any other error except as to the said word "southwesterly."

l(j. It is manifestly incorrect as stated in paragraph ten of the affidavit of the said Andrew Jameson that the word " northeasterly " therein referred to is part of the description of the dividing line mentioned in the said paragraph as the said word occurs in the following part of the description namely "and extending back therefrom in a north-easterly direction in a rectangular block a distance of eight chains seventeen links " And it will thus be seen as indeed is the fact that the word was intended to indicate the direction of the block of land and not of any dividing or other bine and I would also submit that the direction is clearly fixed both by the description and the plan irrespective of the part alleged to have been altered By the description the land is described as extending liack from the Papanui road in a rectangular block and thus it could according to this description extend only in one direction.

17. As regards the said affidavit of tbe said Charles"Tulley I would humbly submit to this Court that sufficient care has not been taken in the preparation and swearing of the said affidavit especially as it was intended as to be used in a matter involving so grave a charge as now imputed against mc In paragraph 1 he swears that he was asked by Mr Hart to compare the parcels in a certain deed Ue then showed him with the plan thereon to see how he could make them agree when he fouud the description would not airree with the plan owing: to a mistake in the word north-westerly which should have been north-easterly.

Is. I have already worn that a mistake was noted by the said Michael Hart upon the said deed referred to in this affidavit as regards the word "south-westerly" yet no reference is made by Mr Tul'ey to this discrepancy between the plan ami description and I would suggest that as Mr Tulley appears to have remembered only one point of difference he is n0 , .? in error in thinking the discrepancy between the description and plan observed by him. was in the word " north-westerly."

10. Paragraph two of the said affidavit is wholly incorrect as there have always been aud then were several important alterations and erasures iv the description of the svld deed as will most clearly appear by reference to the same.

'20. With reference to the affidavit of the said Edward Main waring- Johnson I would point out that the word " north-westerly ''

alleged to have been altered docs not occur in the description of a line but as indicating the direction of a rectangular block and that where the word north-westerly occurs in the said deed as indicating the direction of a line the same is quite correct and remains unaltered.

21. The requisitions on the title originally sent by Messrs Dtincan and Jameson did not refer or in any way allude to any mistake or error in the said deed of mortgage Brownell to mc but referred to a mistake as regards the word south-westerly in a conveyanca Charles Benjamin Taylor to Thomas Turner Hrowuell of the twenty-second day of November one thousand eight hundred and sixtynine and I was not aware until very recently that the said requisitions had-'been altered and I would submit forthe consideration of this honorable Court that the absence of any reference in the original requisitions to any mistake in the said deed of mortgage is strong evidence against the correctness of the recollection of the said Edward M:\inwaring Johnson Charles Tulley and Michael Hart.

22. On my obtaining the said deeds from Messrs Duncan and Jameson on or about the twenty-fifth day of April last I looked at the said deeds alleged to have been altered as regards the erasure in the said plan and of the said word northwesterly to north-easterly which said deeds had been engrossed by my brother a clerk in my office I then called him into my office and pointed ont such erasure, and alteration I asked him whether he knew anything about them He replied that he had an impression or some recollection, of having made the erasure in the plan at the time of engrossing the deed but certainly not after registration I then showed him the other deed asking him if he had made that alteration He said certainly not.

23. My said brother has not to my knowledge had the said conveyance from myself to Turner in which the said erasure occurs in his possession since the engrossment thereof.

24. The said conveyance from mc to Turner (being the deed in which it is alleged that a certain line has been lately partially erased) was as 1 verily believe engrossed on the twentieth day of January and the said mortgage fiom Turner to mc on the twentysixth day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one.

25. The line alleged to have been erased does not and never did appear nor was drawn in the plan on the said mortgage deed though the same parcel of land is intended to be conveyed by both deeds and I submit to the Court that there cannot be the slightest doubt but that the existence or non-existence of the said line in the said deed is wholly immaterial for the purposes of the said deed or any other purpose and that no possible object could be served by erasing or iv any way interfering with it Its existence iv the said deed of conveyance is obviously a mistake.

26. I would submit for the consideration of the Court that the entire absence of any similar line in the said deed of mortgage proves or tends to prove that the persoa who engrossed the said deed of mortgage observed that the line was erased in the conveyance and so he omitted it from the deed of mortgage.

27. I am informed by my partner Mr Cowlishaw who searched the Registry office for mc on the twenty-fifth day of April last that the said line is indicated as a coloured line in the copy of tin said deed contained in the book of the Registry office and that it appears as if the mistake in colouring such line had been observed and an attempt had been made to Tub out the colour The said line never was a coloured live.

28. I never authorised or instructed my clerk Mr Walter referred to iv the affidavit of the said Michael Hart to state that I could not obtain a deed of confirmation from the said Brownell but I did desire him to say that there would be a difficulty or delay in getting such a deed and that the same was unnecessary as the title would be made good by my joining with Mr Turner in, conveying the property to Mr Millton,

2'J. I have no doubt and never had any doubt whatever that I could if necessary obtain a deed of confirmation from the said Brownell as 1 am aware of his place of residence and have had several communications from hini since he has been at Fiji and I was informed by the said Charles Wesley Turner that he has received a letter from him within the last six weeks.

30. I humbly submit to this honorable Court that it is a monstrous thing that a charge of this kind should have been brought forward by Messrs Duucan and Jameson agaiust mc aud laid in the first instance before the council of the Law Society aud subsequently befoie the Honorable Court without in any way asking mc for an explanation or affording mc an opportunity of investigating the matter with them The first intimation of the alleged alterations I received from them was their said letter of the twentysecond day of April last past when they intimated as follows "C. W. Turner to Captain Milltou Iv re-examining the registered title deeds herein we regret to state that serious alterations and erasures have been discovered in important parts and which have been made since the deeds were in our hands for former investigation aud subsequent to their execution and registration On behalf of Captain Millton wo must decline to accept the title and we request that the money already paid be returned with interest thereon from the date of payment We think the fact of alterations and erasures having been made in registered aud executed deeds of such a grave and serious character that we have decided to lay the matter before the Council of the Law Society this afternoon for their advice We consequently meanwhile retain the deeds for their inspection" and in reply I caused to be written my firm's letter of the same date and the matter was laid before the council of the said Law Society and the said council proceeded to and did adjudicate upon the said matter without any communication whatever with or from mc (The said letter was received by us about half-past one o'clock the council meeting at three.)

33. I am informed an believe that; the said Messrs Duncan and Jameson had prepared some of the affidavits in this matter before the meeting of the council of the Law Society. 34. After the meeting of the council of the Law Society and during the time the said Messrs Duncan and Jameson were as I understood preparing their further affidavits in connection with this application I prepared and forwarded to Dr Foster counsel for the said firm of Messrs Duncan and Jameson the statement copy whereof is annexed to the joint and several affidavit of the said Duncan and Jameson but I am informed and verily believe that sjch statement has uot been laid by them before the couucil of the said Law Society. :>5. I would submit to the Court and I feel deeply that I have to rely upon such reasons for the vindication of my character that I could have no possible, motive or inducement to alter the said deeds The laud in the mortgage Browuell to mc is well and sufficiently described quite irrespective of the words north-westerly or north-easterly and which ever of the said two words remained in the said deed there is an ample identification aud description of the property by the rest of the description and the plan Further I firmly believe supposing it to have boon necc-ssar? th.it 1 should have had no difficulty ia übUiiuiug a deed of conlirination from the said Krownell and also especially ;us the said Charles Wesley Turner had informed im that he was perfectly indifferent to the sale going oil and that* he was ready to return to' Mr Million the deposit of his par-cha-e mouev at any time.

:>*). I think tli e"high position I have occupied in my profession and the unblemished character I have always maintained and the honorable manner in which I have always discharged the professional duties devolving upon mc ought to have been sufficient to have deterred the said firm from so hastily preferring such a serions and so unfounded a charge against mc.

1 Charles Edward Salter of St. Alban's near the City of Clmstchurch in the province of Canterbury and colony of New Zealand solicitor's clerk make oath, and say as follows :—

1. That I have read a copy of the several affidavits of Michael Hart Edward Mainwaring Johnson and Charles '" .Hey S' -:;lly sworn herein the third day «■■ M;\v < -■ ; '■

2. With reference to 7 ■ ■■;' imo said affidavit of Michael Hau in which i> is stated by the said Michael Hart that '• I lirst examined the title deeds myself aud then partially and only cursorily with him " I say that the following is a true statement of what then took place When I went down on the first occasion for the title deeds I asked the said Michael Hart to point out the errors referred to in the requisitions when he got the deeds and pointed s. -tv our stating that he had noted all tli .: -f-.vss ; n the margin of the said deeds and that a deed of confirmation from Brownell and Cresswell would be required.

r>. I then communicated the result of my interview to Mr Garrick who did not appear to understand the parts marked in the said deeds :iud noted in the margin as being incorrect and sent mc back again to the*s.iid Michael Hart to get an explanation wheu the said Michael Hart again referred to the deeds and showed mc by the compass that the North road bore south-easterly and not south-westerly.

4. On my examining the said deeds with the said Michael Hart for the purpose of understanding and ascertaining the said objections the only objections made by him were pointed out as those which he had noted in pencil in the margin of the said deeds which were as follows :—

In the conveyance Cresswell to Brownell dated tenth October one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five the word " southwesterly "on the thirteenth line from the top In the mortgage Brownell to the Trustees of the Provincial Investment and Loan Association dated sixth November one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven the word south-westerly on the twenty-third Hue from the top of the second page In the reconveyance from Trustees of the said Provincial Investment and Loan Association to Brownell dated first June one thousand eight hundred and seventy the word south-westerly on the fifth line from the bottom of the second page In the mortgage Brownell to Garrick dated first June one thousand eight hundred and seventy the word south-westerly twenty-second line from the top the top of the first page and in the conveyance Garrick to Turner dated twenty-fourth January one thousand eight huudred and seventy-one the word southwesterly on the twelfth line from the bottom of the second page and the word " easterly" on the bottom line of the said se-

cond page

That no note in pencil or observation was made by the said Michael Hart in respect of or in relation to the word north-westerly alleged to have been recently altered to northeasterly on the said mortgage Brownell to Garrick nor was any objection then or at any time ever made by him to mc in respect thereof I verily believe that Michael Hart Edward Mainwaring-Johnson and Charles Tulley are and must be mistaken in their recollection as to the word north-easterly not being in the said deed of mortgage Brownell to Garrick when they profess to have examined the same as the requisitions on title originally sent by the said Messieurs Duncan and Jameson upon the title of the said property did not refer or in any way allude to any mistake or error in the said deed of mortgage but referred to a mistake as regards the word south-westerly in a convey - ance C. B. Taylor to T. T. Brownell of the second day of November one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine and other errors perpetuated in jJie said title deeds The requisitions were altered at my suggestion in their office in my presence so as to refer to the said deed of mortgage.

5. That the matters of fact set outiu paragraph 8 of the said affidavit are correct I did not however as I verily believe inform Mr Garrick that I have asserted to the first objection or that the third requisition on title had been altered by the said Michael Hart as stated.

(i. That with reference to paragraph 9 of the said affidavit I positively swear that it was not admitted and agTeed between the said Michael Hart and myself that a confirmation Would be required from Brownell as I had no knowledge whatever of conveyancing and had no instructions from Mr Garrick to say any thiug as to a confirmation from Brownell except as hereafter mentioned.

7. That I do not remember the words used by Mr Garrick when he spoke to mc a? to the said confirmation from Brownell and Cresswell's trustees but I distinctly recollect him stating that the assignment from Cresswcll had not been registered aud that he' would obtain a confirmation by Cresswell which he said would be quite sufficient but thai Brownell being in the Fijis there would be a difficulty or delay in getting a confirmation from him and that he did not think the same necessary as he could join in the deed to Millton.

8. That I did not inform the said Michael Hart as stated by him in paragraph 10 of his said affidavit that the only piece of land to which there was no title was a piece ten feet wide and that the same was used as a carriage way but I did inform him that the piece of land not affected by a deed of confirmation by Cresswell was a narrow strip adjoining the property of Mr Eichard Walton.

9. No alteration or erasure whatsoever has been made by mc in the said deeds or any of them nor by any other person to my knowledge.

I Francis James Garrick the above-named solicitor make oath and say as follows: —

1. With reference to paragrpli 18 of the affidavit of Andrew Jameson sworn and filed in this matter I solemnly swear that I have not at any time tampered with or touched or altered the recorded copies of the said deeds therein mentioned nor have I been party or privy to or cognisant of any tampering with or alteration of the said copies nor has any tampering with or alteration of such copies been made or attempted with my approval or to my knowledge or by my instructions.

2. I have not searched or personally attended the said Registry Office of Deeds for the purpose of searching any register at any time within or during the last nine months at the least and I have not any time seen the register affecting the said deeds or the land therein referred to.

I Edward Henry Garrick of Christchurch in the Province of Canterbury in the colony of New Zealand engrossing clerk make oath and say

1. That I remember my brother the said Francis James Garrick calling mc into his orh'ce on the afternoon of on or about the twenty-fifth day of April last past and showing mc an erasure in the place delineated in the margin of a certain conveyance from one Charles Wesley Turner registered in the office for the registration of deeds as number 3051)5 and asking mc if snch erasure had been made by mc lat once said that I had an impression or some recollection of having made such erasure at the time of engrossing such deed He then showed mc another deed a mortgage from one Brown ell to him and registered in the office for the registration of deeds as No. 29.1% in which appeared the alteration of the word "north-westerly ,, to ••north-easterly" and asked mc whether I had in ado such alteration I replied that I had not. 2. 1 verily believe although I have no distinct and positive recollection that the erasure iv the said first-mentioned deed was made by mc at the time of my engrossing the same and between the time of the engrosscicnt of the said conveyance before meniioucd to the said Charles Wesley Turner and of the mortgage by him to my said brother registered in the office for the registration of deeds as number "30,598 " bnt I positively swear that the said erasure in such conveyance was not made by mc since the registration and that the same has not to my recollection or knowledge been in my possession since the same was engrossed.

3. I fiad by two several m'mutes in the diary kept by mc in common with another clerk in the same room with mc that I enthe conveyance from my said brother to Turner oa the twentieth day of January one thousand eight hundred and scveutyone and the paid mortgage from the said Turner to him oa the twenty-sixth day of

January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one that the plan on the mortgage was taken from the said conveyance and that the plans in the said conveyance and mortgage are intended to be n:;.l are identic.-.! with each other the erased lino in the former plan be-injr altogether omitted in the plan on the said deed of mortgage as by reference to such deeds respectively will appear.

4. The said deed of mortgage from Brownell to Garrick was brought to mc by Mr Salter a clerk iv the ofiico with a draft deed of confirmation by one Crcsswell with instructions from my said brother to endorse the same thereupon which I accordingly did on the tenth day of April last returning such deed to the said Salter.

5. I have no recollection of having mado the said alteration in the sakl mortgage Brownell to Garrick from •' westerly" to

" easterly" and I positively swear that I have not made the same or any alteration therein since the registration of the said d»»ed nor has any other person with ray knowledge and consent.

I William Patten Cowlishaw of the city of Christchurch in the colony of New Zealand solicitor of this honorable Court make oath and say as follows :—

1. I have read copies of the several affidavits of Thomas Smith Duncan Andrew Jameson Michael Hart Edward MainwaringJohuson and Charles Tulley sworn and tiled in this matter.

2. With reference to paragraph 14 of the affidavit of the said Audrew Jameson I went to the office of the said Duncan and Jam son for the express purpose of ascertaining what were the alterations and erasures referred to in their letter to us of the twentysecoud day of April last taking with mc Garrick and Gowlishaw's letter to them of the same date I said I have brought you an answer to your letter We (meaning Mr Garrick and myself) are entirely ignorant of any alterations or the erasures iv the deed Personally I have never had to my recollection the deeds in my hands since they were first delivered to you and Mr Garrick is positive the deeds have not been altered and I have come to look at the deeds and see what they are The deeds were then shown to mc and I examined and took note of the alleged alterations. 3. The remarks set forth in the said paragraph are I believe substantially true but they form a small part of the conversation which took place at that time and in particular I remember saying to him you do not. seem anxious to get or afford au opportunity of giving an explanation as the first intimation we get of the matter is your letter making a direct charge of altering the deed and intimating that you intended ta bring the matter that afternoon before the council of the Law Society but oil the contrary you seem in a great hurry to bring the matter forward as if glad of the opportunity or words to that effect The said Andrew Jameson also then Informed mc that he had some of the affidavits in the matter then ready.

4. I well remember my partner Mr Garrick consulting mc with reference to the requisitions on the title of the said property referred to in the said several affidavits aud coming to the conclusion that a good title could easily be made as the plans and description identified the property notwithstanding the errors Mr Garrick said he could get a deed of "confirmation from Cresswell I said I do not think it is necessary r)nt it may as well be obtained.

a. I have not made any alteration or erasure in the said deeds or either of them nor lias any alteration or erasure been made in them or either of them to my knowledge or by my instructions or permission.

0. On or about the 23th day of April lust past I went to the Registry office for the purpose of comparing the registered copy of the said deeds with the originals The said two deeds are registered side by side the plan of the one deed appearing on one side aud the plan of trie other deed on the other side and my attention was thereby at once draw a to the difference between the two plans the plau on the conveyance having a colored line delineated down the middle which line did not appear at all on the plan Upon further examination I saw that an attempt had been made to erase the said colored lino and I at once called Mr Joshua Strange Williams to look at the same and state his opinion thereon He examined it and at first seemed to think no such attempt had been mule but upon further looking into the matter he agreed that it appeared as if some one had attempted to rub out the color from the line.

I John Francis Julius Haast of the City of Christchurch in the province of Canterbury colony of New Zealand geologist and director of the Canterbury Museum make oath and say as follows :

1. At the request of Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw I have examined microscopically and with different magnifying power a certain deed bearing date the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and seventy and expressed to be made between Thomas Turner Brownell of the Papanui road near Christchurch gentleman of the one part and Francis James Garrick 'of the ; same place solicitor of the other part registered number 29196 in order to constate the character of the alterations of the word north-westerly into north-easterly in fourth line of page 2 of the same deed.

2. It is evident from the examination that the alteration of the '• w" into "ea " has been done by the same person wh wrote the deed and almost contemporaneously I mean that the same person who wrote the word north-westerly shortly afterwards aud before the ink was quite dry made the alteration and I may adduce the following reasons to show that this has been the case.

3. Microscopical examination has convinced mc that the point at the end of the letter "s" which immediately followe the "ea" cousists of the same ink as the "ea" but I was totally unable to find that that point was made afterwards but it formed part and parcel of the rest of the letter and was made at the same time when that letter was written Moreover in examining the letter " s" in other parts of the deed T observe that the point at the end of the letter " s" is in every respect similar in form and consists of the same kind of ink as that of the letter " s " immediarely following the "ea,"

4. The characteristic features of the upper stroke of the said letters " ea" partly covering the "w" which appears below it Of a lighter or reddish black are identical with those of the first word north on the second page of the said deed in which the ink. appears darker and blacker than that :n the following word " road" the reason being that the writer pressed more heavily upon his pen in writing the first than the second word I think an equal or similar amount of pressure would be used in changing the " w" into " ea."

r>. The ink of the " ea" has the same character as the ink of the whole document namely of a light color with darker coagulations whilst the ink with which the sentences at the bottom of page ■' three " of the said deed beginning "This Deed "has been penned is of a darker and mg,re uniform character and has the appearance of having been recently written. ■

Affidavits of a similar tenor were filed, sworn by Pis Prins and Powell.

Aα affidavit was also filed from Mr C. Cuff. Cily Surveyor, stating that the erasure ou the plan of conveyance Garrick to Turner did not affect the correctness of the description ; and al«o that the plan on the mortgage Brownell to Garrick was sufficiently described by the plan thereou, without reference to-the description; and that the existence or nonexistence of the words north-westerly or north-easterly was immaterial.

An affidavit wati also " filed by Mr Charles Wesley Turner, stating that he was imlifferent as to Millton giving up the purchase ; and that there was no difficulty, in * his opinion, in obtaining a confirmation necessary for the perfecting of the title from »Mr Brownell, as he had received a letter from him a short time since.

Mr Holmes then addressed the Court at some length against the rule being made absolute, contending that the authorities were positive in asserting that the Court could not iuterfereunless there was sufficient

evidence to convict before a jury, and that there was not a tittle of evidence at all in the case connecting Mr Garrick with the alleged alterations. Cases cited : Stevens v. Hill, 9 B. & 8. p. 484; Jt re a solicitor, Neville ami IVitv's Reports, p. :589.J Also that the plan would override all false descriptions, as laid down in Lewellyn v. Earl of Jersey and Others. 11 W. & W., p. 183. The learned counsel eouteuded further that it was utterly and totally absurd to suppose that a gentlemau holding so high a position in the profession as Mr Garrck would, with no object whatever, as was clearly shown, peril his reputation and commit an act which would consign him to a felon's cell if proved. He would leave the matter in the hands of his Honor, feeling sure that the Come would discharge the rule at once; indeed he felt that the gentlemen on the opposite side should apologise to Mr Garrick for having made so foul a charge—one which was cruel injustice to that gentleman. Mr Holmes also, in the course of his address, referred to the affidavits of the three experts in examining the ink, and their declarations that the ink w.is of the same date, and that the alterations must have been made at the time the deed was engrossed, and by the same person who performed the engrossing.

Dγ Foster followed in support of the rule being made absolute, contending that there was no doubt at all that the altcrations'hftd been mado, and that they wero shut lip in endeavoring to trace the person who had done it to Mr Garrick and his clerks. The latter could have no possible object in doing it as there was not the slightest gain to them in the matter.

His Honor said that there was no doubt the alteration had been made, but then it did not follow that Mr Ganick had done it because it had been done somewhere. This, ifc seemed to him was a very improbablo conclusion, in fact a complete non sequitur.

Dγ Foster then proceeded to quote from the affidavits of Messrs M. Hart, M. Johnson, and Tulley, to prove that the alterations existed when the deeds were compared by them in Messrs Duncan and Jameson's office. They had then Mr Parker's evidence as to the erasure being made after it came to the registry office.

His Honor said that oven putting the caso that a clerk in Mr Garrick's office had mado the alteration without his cognisance that would not be sufficient for him to go upon to make the rule absolute.

Dr Foster pointed out that the rules of practice prescribed their coming to the Court and asking for the rule, as they had no other mode of procedure, and proceeded at some length to argue the law points of the case, contending that the.Court attached too much importance to the case of " Stevens v. Hill."

His Honor said that he had rjiven great consideration to the matter, audhad looked with much care into the affidavits, and it appeared to him that the caso narrowed itself to a question of costs, as he had como to the conclusion to discharge the rule. If either o£ the counsel desired to address him on the question of costs he would hear them on it

Mr Holmes said he was instructed uot to apply for costs. Dγ Foster also declined to address the Court on this point. . '■■: '

His Honor—There are two or three cases which I ehoult} like to look into before deciding on the question of coets, but I will first of all say that I do not' consider there is any case to warrant mc in. making the rulp absolute. 1 think there can be no difficulty at all in arriving at this conclusion after a careful perusal of the whole of the affidavits. We all know the deservedly high opinion all in the profession, in comnien with those out of it entertain for Messrs Duncan and Janje°on; but I must say that I think .they were somewhat hasty and precipitate in the matter. I thiuk that, considering the high position in the profession occupied by Mr Garrlcfc, that they should have gone to him and asked for an explanation, previous to laying the matter before the Law Society. Dr Foster —I may point out toyout ( Honor that we received an explicit denial from Mr Garrick of the whole matter, and that was why we went on. His Honor—But the letter says that it will be laid before the Law Society that day. Dγ Foster—But, your Honor, we received an express denial before we laid the matter before the Law Society, and we considered it of such grave importance that we had no other course open to us but to go on. 1

His Honor—That is not quite the question I want to get satisfactorily cleared up.; What I want to elicit is, was Mr Garrick' asked to explain the matter, as it docs not appear that he was from any document before mc I maysay that the impression on a person's mind on discovering such errors would be that it was a very serious matter; and I think it is not too strong to say that it would create suspicion-; but it appears tome that, with respect to a gentleman of such high professional standing as Mr Garrick, that the better course would have been to have gone to him, and asked him to give an explanation of the matter before bringing it to the notice M the Law Society. '" ' "■■■''•

Dr Foster~-But, your, Hpnor, wo first pointed out the errors, and then when we. received an explicit denial , said we should lay the matter before the Law Society.

His Honor—But it was brought before tho Law Society before an opportunity had been afforded for explanation. - . -.

Mr Holmes—The letter contained the information that the matter would be laid before the Law Society that day.

Dr Foster—The explicit denial we received left us no other course. : :

His Honor—But still there was the often* siVe threat that the matter should be laid before the Law Society without affording him any opportunity of explanation. I thiuk it was hasty and inconsiderate. , As I have said, I don't think there is any, ground at all for my making the rule absolute, aud I go further and gay, unhesitatingly, that had I been a jury, and Mr Gtarrick had been brought tip charged with the criminal.'offence on such ejr|dence as has been adduced, I should have acquitted him. There tiaa been some improper dealing somewhere. I do not say in office, but Mr Garriclc is' not* responsible for this. I don*t at all mean to say that Duncan and Jameson were not justified in bringing the matterfbefore the Court, as it is the duty of the profession aa well as the Court to jealously conserve the honor of the profession, but still I think that it is a pity they did not apply to Mr Garrick in the first instance for an sexplanation. The rule will be discharged Jbut without costs. ■■•'■■■ ' l The Court then rose. , . : .' :■ '.'i'iil' A