The Bill Cases.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5898, 1 August 1890, Page 3

The Bill Cases.

——« J. V. JSROWX V. BENXJ;TT AND ROCHFOUT. (Before His Honor Justice Conolly aLcl a Special Jury.) Tin's caso was called on this morning , . Mr Carlilc, with Mr McL":in, appeared for tlit) plaintiif, and ilr Coruford for defendant.

The following jury were cmpiinuelle-d : — Mev-rs I , '. W. Williams (foreman) K. Black, 11. Aplin, W. A. B. : ec»oh, J). Oooper, H. Gilb.'id, 11. Campbell, Chns. Odd. Juo. Beatsou, "\V. M. Newman, 11. anl J. K. Gil'oerd.

Mr Uarlile, in opening the ease, snid the present action was brought to recover from the executors of tho estate the amount of eight promissory notes; seven of which were made by Fletcher, nnd one by Parker in favor of Mr Brown, ei'dor.sod by Fletcher. 'Die amount of the bills was £;1202 Us Cd which was thft correct amount, and it appeared that Mr Brown never intended to i claim tho full amount as owing , to him, but between himself and parties. Among these bills, varying from £.',»'.) to £2i7, were five bills which were the on-s claimed on. These were discounted, proper value being given fur them, at a very usual rate of discount by Mr Brown to Parker. The total amount of the five bills they claimed on was £1281) 12s ikl with interest. Ail the uight bills were not. discounted by Mr Drown and it wie not their wish to recover judgment for the full amount, but it had been considered necessary to make his claim against the estate tor the whole amount. The fact was those bills, for £i;i2j and £-5(iS were lodged by Parker -with llr, Brown as collateral securities for various amounts owing from time to time. These two bills they abandoned, and prayed for judgment on livo bills, and the one for £;WS. The defenco alleged that Fletcher didn't sign or make nuy of the promissory notes, nor did ho endorse Hny of them ; also, tlnit duo notice of dishonor had not been given ; that the billa appeared to have been materially altered ; thut the plaintiil' was not tho holder of the notes, which were not regular on the ftiee, and if signed by Fletcher, they were signed at a time when Flctelu-r was unable, to understand the full meaning and eiicet of the documents. The defence alleged that Uμ bills for £'16H. £225, il.ili llsG-.i) £175, £175, and £247, were originally notes for £S, £5, £9, £5, £v, and £7.'

John Vigor Brown deposed ho was commission iiguut in Napier, and represented various agencies. Knew Parker to write an irregular Lund, uud th;it Parker and Fletcher were very friendly ; had business rel.-ttious with Parker, and h:id to deal with promissory notes. The iirst bill he discounted for Purker was for £11,1, and bud discounted bills for Pfirker up to Fletcher's death, endorsed by Fletcher. The first unpaid discounted bill was for £1325 about 17Ui August, ISSS ; at that tinio Parker's position with him wiw it friendly one, and Parker was indebted to hi:n for £M oor £100 then, but there were other bills current. Did not advance anything upon the £102-j note brought to him by Parker, because it was too big and too long d.-ited; kept it for it couple of months, uud then Parker brought him another bill for £os,S; it was a nine months' bill, on which he did not make any advance.", because, like the others it was too big and too loug dated. Gave him back the £1325 bill, uud told him ho would have to briny one for a smaller amount; Parker then brought tho £')8S bill, which ho would not part with ur.til there was a settlement ; retained it for a fortnight or three weeks, when he trot the £;jtSS bill from him, which ho kept, but he did not, discount it, because it was too big, and bis bank would not care to discount for more than £10u or, i'-(K! at most. i\lade advances upon it, but the advances were current then lo tho iiinount of £2UO. On thu strength of the A'uiJS bill discounted some other" bills of Parker's : advanced COO of

£7U. Did not keep it discount book, and

}iud no book, except hia bank book, showing tln.rO bill tiMiisaetious. Di'-'ember Mih Watlie dutii of t!.o £-i'J.j bill, which ho dirt-

counted for j.'arker, giving- him cash lens twelve per cent, at the. mo.it, and hud at tho bank lilts cheques representing the amounts paid. The two cheques produced were "or ,<:\>j{) and £110 7s CA, representing the cash lie nave Parker for this bill. (The promissory notes di.-couutcd by the witness, thembjeet of tho action, were put in, v.itnesrf certifying to t!i« pr.jdurud rejirt.-ti«.-Jitliitr the varimis amount.s In: had ucivaiieed on the bills ) The uheque f..r &')0, April 2nd, v<us yivun by him to I'.iiker, who lirljoil him at that time wiie:)ier he could lend Liia sumo money. The I'A'i'l') bill crjmo back It) him some time itiiipril; Unit was aftur Fletcher's death, iiud was ustijiiisl-.ed to see it, ns he thought it h:id been yivcu buck to Fletcher. Parker brought that note back to him, and desired advance* on it, and promised t,i, but didn't juM: then. 'V.n.k the £l-;-> bill to tin.! b.iiiic towards the ~.; k ,l of April, and the oM man bid iiii-d en the Mtli of that month, while lie (witn ■.-.■•)

was in Uisbjn.e. Ihe bill was put m Liv pillViV, and to !i:ivo il iiil in order, as it, was -till current ; did not then know where the I'.jSS bill was, itiiil did not iind it till :t coupl'j of ninths after that; jj-ot that bill rome time iv June, lsMi. mid put it into tlit' bank lor collection. Tho £MiS bill w;ishfld •is c/llnteial for any advances that hud be-.--: "i- I'liyiit be made. AJI tin.- eight bill* W;V'inthe same handwriting, every thinir but. the si-.M.iluiu : with tliu exception of the f .)h -'<"• ■■)Vt,"u\{ tho bill.- purported to be signed by Vt'iUiii'u Pl. ■α-iior ; recognised farker's «v'iit:nno on tho biiis. Had b.-eis the i.'Tl,,, r of ;!e> bills .-inee ihov h;nl been put t.ir !•;.., 1.-. \y.'Avi>.: lit biii ~. vv riw'i.ii.-" -!i •-.' !■!■;■■ :i'-.i!it il t the wnt- ! nii ui-^v ' . -nil .-■.■•iiiLMif the b-ttera were ' ionnod better thai! ol!:<.r«; saw nothing

irregular on the face of the other bill*. At the time the bills came into his hand* he did consider anything suspicious about any of them.

To Mr Cornford: Had not gone thoroughly into bill discounting till July 1889. A bill discounter to do business properly would have to charge much more than eleven or twelve per centCounsel : It depends on the paper and greenness of the individual, doesn't it. Witness :No; on the risks you take. Was acquainted with Mr Mitchell, of Taupo, and had discounted pnper bearing his signature. Didn't " melt " any paper for Mr Garrett. Discounted a bill for Mr Mitchell in July last, giving him £196 for a £207 10s bill'for three months. Gener-

ally charged ten per cent per annum and two und a-half per cent commission. Mr McVay wired him vrheu ho was in Gisborne that Fletcher was dead ; Mr McVay knew that he had a considerable interest in the old man. His solicitors were instructed by him to suo for £3200 in the administration suit. Counsel: And if there hadn't been a row the amount would haT»|been the same now? Witness: The amount of tho claim would have been tho same as now. On the oth. October paid the Hank £1070 from another

account, to pick up the bills, because the

securities were, better on ono account than the other. In the will case did not hear that Parker had said that he (witness) hud advanced him £700 without securities. There was nothing: suspicions about the £1325 bill, and did not know what Parker would want with that bill. Was not present at Parker's bankruptcy meeting und did not take care thtit other people were. Wanted thj Court to understand that there was nothing to arouse his suspicion on the bill; knew that it was too big- for discounting ; stuck to the bill, and Parker never asked him for it until ho asked him for the £588 bill. Made no substantial advances. Parker wanted something on tho £1325 bill. Had always obliged customers; that was the reason he had drifted into bill discounting ;

never kept the butts of cheques. In dealing with Parker would not have discounted his bills unless they had been ondorsed by Fletcher or someone else. First heard of

the existence of a will in Parker's favor through Mr McVay's telegram. Remembered most of the cheques were cashed by Parker, and often cached cheques himsolf so that his bank wouldn't kuow all his transactions; as far as ho romeuibered cashed only two cheques for Parker.

Counsel": You cached them yourself when you wore certain they were not all right ? Witness: Sometimes was in credit and

sometimes not in credit. Was astonished ;o hear that tho .£Ui'2o bill was out at all.

Tho Court then adjourned for lunch. The case was resumed at two o'clock.

Mr. Brown to Mr. Coruford : The £225 bill was tho first one ho had treated in anything like a discount fashion ; it was dated when brought to him; discounted it ou December 17th, mid the first payment whs ou the follo<viny day. Had ordinary clerical experience, and paw nothing on tho face of the bill to necessitate enquiry ; saw nothing suspicious on the face of the £1325 bill; heard all sorts of rumors about there being something suspicious on the bills, but did not know whether , tint was before or after tho will case. Had heard other people besides Mr. Cornford say thero whs something: suspicious about tho bills. Had hc-Xrd .«u from George Williams, and had submitted the bill for inspection to his banker, and tho Inspector of the -Bank of New South Wabw. Mr Toir, late manager of the Union Bank, also saw them. Parker always asked that tho amounts should be split in two. Counsel: So that tho amounts could not bo followed. Witness : J)id not know about that, but gave him or.o cheque before discounting, and another after. Re-examined by Mr McLean: Instructed his solicitors !o write to Mr Cornford to prevent talk about the bills.

Mr Coruford : I couldn't stop the public, from speaking , about them. Mr McLean: You can produce the correspondence. Wmiuss: Never dreamt at tho time that Parker, v man who had a feat on tho School Committee, and was no well known about tin , town, should come to him with a bill that was in any way auspicious. Took up the bills from the batik in order to euo ou thfin. The Bank Inspector examined tho bills. Counsel: A man with a fine business eye. Witness : Yes. His Honor: You ought to produce his photograph to tho jury.

James McLean deposed hi» was manager of tho Bank of New South Wales, Napier ; ami had been so for two years. Mr Brown was ii customer of the bank. The promissory note for £1325 produced eamo into his hands on the 'liUh April, ISS!>, lodged by Mr Brown, for coliecu.m ; there were

advances nsktd or mnde against it, and the came was the case with the £.388 which also came into his possession, lodged on Mr Brown's account on the Li J th Juno, 1881'; iilsi the notes for JJ3OS. Tho £225 bill wae brought for discount, and eight and a half per cent was charged, the £99 lie Cd bill was also discounted at eight per cent. Tho £170 bill of 4th February, wits discounted, also another bill for £175 of February 11th, ah> thy £2il bill. Tho bills were'afterwards taken up by Mr Brown. Whcu the bill* became due they were presented for payment, but all worn dishonored. His bank first discounted bills from Fletcher to Parker in February, ISS6, a bill for £150, and the next was discounted in March ISB7,

£125 ; next in July, £(18 10* Gd, paid at tho UUion Bank.

Mr Cornford: 'ihore is no such bill lebitfd in Fieu-herV book.

Witness : According to the Bank's book

t was.

Sir Cornford : Yes, but wo don't admit that as proof. Witness : The next bill was discounted in October, £00 12s tid. Discounted a bill in March, ISSS, £SS 12s od, Fletcher to Parb;r, it was presented at tho Union Batik and taken up there. His Honor: It is not eviilvnco that any such bills ever existed. Tho witness has only been in Napier two years, and was not in tho bank at the tinio.

Witness : Parker at one time banked at the Bank of New South Wales. There was nothing on the bills to make him beliero they were not rogular on the face. In the £17.) bill of the -ith February two letters were painted over, in "five."

To Mr. Cornford : Did not know of Brown Bros,, or that Mr. Brown hud a brother concerned with him in bu-iness.

His Honor: It's m> discredit for a man :o carry on business as Brown Bros.

Wiiness : Any alteration in a bill would be noticed; examining tho £1320 bill did not consider the character of tho handwriting of " oho thousand three hundred " similar to " twenty-five." The bill might have been written nil at the same time ; tho " five pounds " was a little lighter than tho other words. Could not cay whether the inks of the writing were* all the satno. Saw nothing on tho £225 bill to suggest that it had not been written at tho same time.

Mr Uornford siid it was not his intention to pursue the name course as in tho Bank of New Zealand i:ase, but hu proposed to call gentlemen of experience to give evidence as to what was patent, to them on the face of the bills.

His Honor: Well, I shall tell tho jury thf! same as before, I don't say that the evidence is inadmissible, but I don't attach any importance to it.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.