THIS DAY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5899, 2 August 1890, Page 3

THIS DAY.

Tho case was resumed this morning.

James McLean, re-calloel, produced a list of bills given up to Mr Brown when ho paid into the Bank, £1097, among thorn was a bill from Mr Turner to Mr Irvine, endorsed by Mr Brown, but that was not associated with tho other bills.

James Gleeson, gavo similar evideuce to that given by him in previous bill cases. Charles Palmer produced the bill for £200 tho subject of his action against the eamo defendants.

Mr Cornford asked for what purpoeo tho witnoße was called. If it was to prove Fletcher's hand writing and nothing more? his friend was trying to get iv by a side wind evidence which he could not directly call. Mr McLean said Mr Palmer was called for the purpose of showing that the note was endorsed by Fletcher for Purker's accommodation, and to show that there wore other transactions in bills by Fletcher, outside of the bills euod on. He submitted he was entitled to do that.

After some discussion between counsel Mr McLean said ho would not trouble the witness any further. William Robinson, accountant in the Bank of Australasia, produced Fletcher's guarantee for £500 for Parker's overdraft, and various cheques and bills in Parker's hand writing. The bills were here put in as one exhibit, and Mr Cornford, said eorao of _ the bills should be put in as exhibits. His Honor wished counsel would proceed with the case. Ho did not see why tho bills should not be put inaeono exhibit. Witness to Mr Cornford: Noticed soinothing peculiar about tho £1325 bill. Tho words " ono thousand three hundred and twenty" were written differently to the "five." There also seemed to be a difference in the character of the "132" and tho "o." If that bill had been presented to him ho should have referred it to the maker beforo paying it; it wasn't written in the maker's writing. The bill would suggest a discrepancy and they were always on the lookout for fraud being perpetrated ; the bill looked suspicious. The witness was here asked to look at the bill through the coutrivanoo used in the other cases—a looking- glaes placed at the bottom of an open box, with a piece of glass on the top. Mr McLean objected to the witness looking at the bills through it, as it led ono to suppose that things were there which were not there at all. It had never been submitted to them for a fair test. His Honor: I don't know what that arrangement is at all. Mr Cornford : It is the simplest thing m the world, and hasn't been in any way tampered with. His Honor: It isn't a thing to be found in every country house or bank. Mr Cornford : I am aware of that, but its uneful all the same. Witness: Looking at tho £225 bill through the glass, saw that some of tho ink was* lighter than the other. There must have been a distinct reason in the coloring of the shading, but ho could not tell what it was. The figures were cramped at the commencement; tho "25" seemed closer together than tho other "2;" these all appeared to have been gone over with the pen and darkened; the word "pounds" had also been inked over. Looking at tho £99 lie Gd bill, saw that the first " 9 " was bigger than the second. The £175 bill would not have been passed

by him for payment; the words " one huudrcd and seventy" woro of a different character to tho words "five pounds." There were different shades of ink ; in the other bill for £175, the writing of tho *' ono hundred and seventy" was very much darker than the " fivo pounds " ; that was the ,'most noticablo thing about it. Tho " one hundred and seventy " was more flowing, and had quite a different slant to the "five pounds/ ' Looking at the £247 bill there was a difference in the character of the handwriting, between tho "two hundred and forty " and tho " seven pounds." In the £368 bill the words " Joseph Parker " and " three hundred and sixty" were dift'oront ; also the '■ Union Bank of Australia " aud "eight pounds" was certain he would not have passed such a bill.

Mr. McLean : You generally fpund that jn writing Parker started off triumphantly and finished very small. Witness: I don't consider this a fair sample I've got in my hand. A bundle of cheques and promissory notes were then handed to the witness for examination. ' . , Mr. McLean re-examined tho witness at At P»o o'clock the Court adjourned for On the Court resuming, J F Jardiuo deposed ho had not tound any promissory notes belonging to tho estate of Joseph Parker. Had searched the papers. , , To Mr Cornford : Could ftnd no trace in ! Purker's books cf the proceeds of any of '< Fletcher's bills. At tho meeting of creditors ' "iMik,jr utad*abatement, but he was not

1 satisfied witih'if.'. \ Mr Uoruford wished the explanation pu

ij HI. ] Mr McLean objected. His Houor eiud Mr Brown, the plaintifti

was anxious to give the explanation Parker gave to him and it was not allowed, and the other could not therefore be put in. To Mr McLean: Parker had kept records of portions of his work. Could not obtain from Parker an account of the rents reoeived from the properties. Robert L. Williams deposed his firm had received promissory notes which were taken up by Parker. The maker of one of those notes was Fletcher.

Mr. Cornford objected to that, -and His Honor upheld the objection. To Mr. Cornford : He took up one bill for Purker, the latter giving him the money before he left for Melbourne. That was how the bill came into his possession. The bill was not to be presented against Fletcher's account, was the instruction he got from Parker.

To Mr. McLean: If a bill were coming due in his absence he would leave funds to meet the bill at the bank. If a friend gave him an accommodation bill he would expect the friend to meet it.

Mr McLean : Then I hope you will never ask me for an accommodation bill.

James Morley deposed ho had got promissory notes from Parker. Tho note produced was in Parker's writing, and was present when it was written. It was written at one titno.

George Tait and William Burton gave evidenoe as to tho habits of tho late Mr Fletcher.

William A. Amnor also deposed as to the habits of the late Mr Fletcher.

Tho statement of the plaintiff's claim was amended by adding to the paragraph stating several promissory notes were by endorsement transferred to the plaintiff " for value." The last words being added, Mr Carlile said ho had finished his case, but if Mr Cornford submitted the evidence of so-called experts he would be compelled to call rebutting evidence. His Honor said he must give counsel notice if the case were unduly protracted it would not be finished at this sittings, for he was not disposed to let it intsrfere with other business. Mr Carlile was entitled to recall robutting evideneo if Mr Coruford followed the course he had suggested. When they rose it should be uuderstood that the calling of evidence would be finished on Monday, and his summing up could then be done on Tuesday. Tho Court then adjourned till Monday morning.