Supreme Court.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5892, 25 July 1890, Page 3

Supreme Court.

THIS DAY.

(Before His Honor Justice Conolly and a special jury).

11AITK OF KJ-W ZEALAND V. ISEN.N'KIT AJ.D

UOCIIKOBT

This ease was called on thin morning. Mr C.-Jtturill, together with Mr Sainsbury, appeared for plaintiffs, aud Mr Cornford, with Mr Kennedy, for defendants. Tho following jury was cinpannolled : — Messrs R. 11. Robinson, W. A. Beecroft, R. Brooking, J. li. Williams, H. Powdrell, A. G. Tuxford, Hugh Campbell, J. R. Lanauze, N. Wallace, A. Wellwood, G. A. McDonald, W. H. Anthony.

Mr Williams was chosen foreman,

Mr Cotterill stated that tho only allegation* which was undisputed, was that the defendants were executors of tho will. On the 14th of January, 1880, the pleadings set out there was a promissory note signed by William Fletcher, promising to pay Joseph Parker £500 four months after date ; this was endorsed by Turner. Parker endorsed the note to Turner, who endorsed it to the Bank. On tho 26th of February, ISBO, there was another promissory note, by which Fletcher promised to pay Parker £175 four months after date, which was in a similar farm to the last one. Parker endorsed this to Turner, who endorsed it to tho Bank. On the 4th Maroh, 1839, there, was a third note for £226, also four months after date, from Fletcher to Parker, endorsed in a similar way. With tho permission of the Court he proposed to put the promissory notes before the jury. His Honor : Not at present. You can't put them before the jury without putting .hem in as part of the ease. Mr Cotterill submitted, aud continued : Such promissory notes wero overdue and paid and plaintiffs prayed for judgment for the various amounts, which had not been paid by tho estate of William Fletcher, the person who made them. That was simply the case for the Bank, which dealt with the notes iv the ordinary course of busine.s, having given value lor them. The defendant.- set out that William Fletcher did not promi-o to pay Parker four months after date, £500, and tho onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that William Fletcher varied it. In the hill for ~i 7. defendants alleged that Parker did'nt endorse it, nor Turner to the Bank, and plaiutilfs had to provo that that the endorsements wero made by Parker and Turner. On the third promissory note for £225 there was a similar defence, and their statement went ou to say that if the notes were signed hy Fletcher they were so without consideration, as J. A. Turner and the Bank well know,

and that they did'nt obtain such iv the ordinary course of business. Tho eleventh paragraph defence set out that at the time of the endorsements

and signatures were made Fletcher was a man ->f advanced aged and penurious habits as plaintiffs well know. He did not know what this had to do with his action, as that hud no bearing in this case. It was further

set out that the bills wero not regular on

the face of them; but the jmy would bo able in judge that for themselves ; also, that Uio notes, lo the knowledge of tin, plaintills, worn unreasonably large iv amount and suspicious, and that the Bank neglected to make proper enquiries rogard-v-fr tho notes ; that would be loudly disproved. On the 20th March ISOO, there was an additional defence filed, that if Fletcher .igued any promissory notes as aU'.-.-T-d, xnch notes were respectively for .-uni- of £•- each, and made void by buiiiy; materially nit-rtd to amounts of £',00, £17r»,

Mr Cuiterili said iv the last action of the Colonial B .ilk against tho same defendants, the case had been prolonged by tho plaintiffs being culled upon to prove negatives. In this oa-u he asked that they bo not called unoii to prove negatives. "Mr Comfort! objected to this.

His Honor said it was for the plaintiffs to prove that these notes were made by

Fletcher, and in cross-examination this question would come up. He would take care that if there was anything in the evidence by which plaintiffs were prejudiced, counsel would be allowed to call evidence in reply. Some discussion ensued as to whether the bills should bo put to tho jury now, Mr Sainsbury holding that the jury should see them bofore their minds were prej -diced by what might bo stated by witnesses. His Honor said if the jury desired to see the bills now they could do so. The jury did not wish to see the bills just then. T. W. Balfour, manager of the Bank of New Zealand, deposed that Mr J. A. Turner, bill discounter, was a customer of the Bank, which discounted bills for him to a large extent. On tho 14th January, 1889, the Bank discounted the bill for £500 for Turner, and was quite sure that it was Turner's signature, whose attendance he had endeavored to ensure at the Court today, but without result. Had transactions with Fletcher and found him pretty clever. The threo promissory notes produced wero discounted by tho Bank at the usual rate, nine por cent., in each case. When the bills wero discounted there was nothing on them to arouse his suspicions, and he saw nothing suspicions on them now, nor any incompleteness or irregularity on the face, except that in ono instance the ink appeared to have been rather thin, and the figures looked as if thoy had been touched up. He discounted tho bills on the strength of the name of William Fletcher, and the name of Parker or Tnrner did not influence him in discounting them. Previous to discounting them ho had mad 3 enquiries as to Fletcher's position, tho usual enquiries the Bank made under such circumstances, with the result that they wero quite satisfactory. To Mr Cornford: Did not think thoro was anything suspicious in taking up bills of tho kind. Knew that Fletcher had considerable property, to tho extent of £4000 or £5000. Could not judge by Fletcher's appearance that he was likely to give anyone accommodation for bills amounting to a thousand Dounds. Counsel here asked the witness whether ho was awaro that in tho will oase, Parkor had stated that Fletcher had accommodated him to the extent of thousands of pounds. Mr Sainsbury objected, and said the same question was asked in the previous bill case, aud tho Chief Justioo had upheld the objection.

His Honor : I havo been referred several times to what tho Chief Justice has ruled in a previous action. If lam not competent to docido those matters myself the sooner I leave this Bench the better. The witness to Mr Cornford: Had examined the £500 bill through a glass and was of tho opinion that it was all in tho same style of handwriting. Had had occasion to examine bills to detect if possiblo forgery, and in Christchurch detected a forgery iv tho signature of a bill; did not remember having had to specially examine the body of a bill. Would say that the character of tho upstrokes of the words "fivo" and "hundred" wero not much different ; would say that thicker ink had been used, probably by a fresh dip in the ink, that was all. The "five" did not seem to havo been written in a more dashing manner than tho " hundred." In tho £175 bill there was a slight difference in the strokes of tho words "ono hundred and soventy" and fivo ;" could not say that an alteration had been made ; did not think any one could tell. In the £225 bill it did not occur to him that the " 22" had been put before the " 5," nor did anything suggest itself to him. After all ho had heard about tho bills ho saw no objection to discounting them. W. T. livino, merchant, deposed that since Turner's departure Mr Balfour and himself had been acting as his agents aud attorneys. The promissory noto produced for £300 was found amongst Tumors' papers about a month ago. H F. Gibbons, who has been bill clerk for eight or nine years iv the Bank of New Zealand, deposed that iv bills for discount he would see they woro in order and then referred to the manager to see if he would discount them. Had received a great number of bills from Turner for (discount; also several bills on which Parker's name appeared, and purported to bo made by Fletcher. Saw no irregularity in tho £300 bill produced, and it appeared to him to bo complete on tho face of it, nor did ho see anything irregular in any of them, aud if -imilar bills came to him again ho would pass them for discount. To Mr Cornford: Tho letters "h" and " d " in " hundred " appeared to bo inked over in the £500 bill, but tho difference was slight, and would not call it a suspicious difference; would not say there was any difference iv the color. Looking through tho glass could not see any difference in the color of the ink. Tho £175 bill seemed to him to havo been written all at tho same time. Nothing suggested its.lf to him on tho £225 bill. Arnold Weber, bill clerk for four years _t the T__io_L Bunk of __ustra_-si—., depose—. he had known Fletchor for many years, and had seen him sign his name; recognised Fletcher's signature on two cheques produced, and looking at tho three promissory notes should say that they had been signed by Fletcher ; there was no irregularity aa far as he could

see. The Court then adjourned for lunch. The Court resumed at two o'clock. Mr Weber to Mr Cornford : In tho £500 bill there was no difference between the characters in the writing of "five" and " hundred;" the latter word seemed to have been written thicker than tho " pound," but not to any noticeable extent. Iv the .£175 bill there was no difference in tho character of the handwriting ; should say it presented tho appearanoe of having been written all at tbo ono time. There was uo difference in the writing in tho £225 bill. His Honor said tho jury wero just as competent as any witnesses that might be called to judge whether a certain writing had been done at one time or not. Mr Cornford said ho called the evidenco of gentlemen who in tho course of their lives had a great deal of experience in these matters. His Honor said ho should toll the jury that they wero quite as competent to judge in these matters as any gentlemen who had dealt with bills all their lives. Dealing with bills did not enable a man to judge whether ono writing was done at one timo and another at a different time. He had i seen so much of professed expert evidence that he did not believe in it. If ho was hero two years he thought he should bo an expert on weariness. Thos. Sidey deposed ho had known Parker and Fletcher for a long period ; the two wero very intimate ; in fact Fletcher u-_d to call Parker his boy " Joey." Last saw Fletcher iv February 18S9, by tho Union Bank. Fletcher whs perfectly intelligent then, and very shrewd iv the business connections ho had had with him ; considered him as being able to take caro of himself during all tho time he knew him. Recognised tho endorsements on tho bills produced as Parker's handwriting. Had discounted fivo promissory notes for Parker iv which Fletcher's natuo appeared. Met Fletcher one day and said, "I'vo discounted a bill of yours in Parker's favor for £250 ; I suppose its all right." Fletcher replied " Oh, yes, you need not trouble yourself about that. Joey will be all right." Fletcher didn't seem surprised, and appeared to know all about tho transaction, which ho judged from tho way he looked. Told Parker that ho had spoken to Fletcher about tho transaction. To Mr Cornford : Did somo discounting in '886 with Parker and was always paid. Was quite positive that ho mentioned the sum of £250 to Fletcher. H. Vickerman doposed he had boon connected with the Union Bank for twenty-one years. Looking at the bills produced should say they were .< 11 regular, with ono small irregularity, but nothing to prevent discounting ; the irregularity was the word " Napier " filled in in tho £175 bill. I'o Mr Cornford : Had examined the bills proviously, and had noticed nothing suspicious about them. Bankers of larger experience than himself might say differently, but it was a matter of opinion as to tho irregularity of tho bills. A promissory note might be forged and escape notice, and as far as ho could see the bills had not been altered. John 11. Kerr, manager of the Union Bank of Australia, deposed he had had close on thirty-two years' banking experience. Looking at tha notes produced, he saw nothing on the face of them that would prevent him from discounting them. To Mr. Cornford: There was nothing irregul tr, either in ink or writing to suggest mi alteration in any of tho bills. Had seen so many of Parker's bills that ho was not sure whether ho had seen the bills (produced) before. William Robison, employed in the Bank of Australasia, was called, but his evidence was deferred till to-morrow, counsel to give him list of bills desired to be produced. Jitme.s Briggs, hotelkeeper at tho Spit, deposed he had leased tho Loudon Hotel from the late Mr Fletcher ; had negotiations with him, and found him tiuito lively to his own interests. Fletcher thoroughly under- , stood tho transaction. To Mr Cornford : Fletcher was not m a good state of health in January, 1880, and seemed to bo on friendly torms with his family. i The case was proceeding when we went . to press.