The Bill Cases.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5902, 6 August 1890, Page 3

The Bill Cases.

J. V. BROWN V.

BENNETT AND

ROCHFORT.

(Before Hit Honor Sir Justiou Connolly and a suvcj* l j ur y-)

The case was resumed this tnamiug,

Mr Corn ford addressed the Court on lifelmlf of thu defendants. Tho main issues to hu decided were few and ho trusted tho jury would not find much difficulty in coining to a conclusion. Tin; jury could make tl;t:ir own deductions from the fact of the withdrawal of tbo two lnrtje.it promissory notes at the test moment, and tho executor* had a. right to know why Mr. Brown held those bill and was making noclaim upon them. The bills on which Mr. Brown did cliiiin were frauds, and Mr. Brown muet huyc known and come to no other conclusion on tliu facu of the biils thin thut they were fotgwit'S, materially utid fraudulently altered no as to constitute a fvrgery, and tho defendants

wero not liable, no matter how much Mr. Brown may have given for them. There was no charge of fraud against Mr. Brown, but they accused him of culpable negligence. Looking , ut Mr. Fletcher's rent bo.ik, they would find that it was thu homeliest sort of book that a man could keep, while they wero told by a witness that Fletcher did not even keep his own books and accounts. The old man was carofullv left to look after his own tenants, iind tuo'uuly thing that ever troubled him wan to see that none of them werein arrears. With thai t>* his main anxiety, what would the jury <<ay to Fletcher ;,'ivin« i?arl«:i- £ l ,i>o<) worth <>i paper fco a frjem) on mieh evidence us tho jury had before them 't Why the thing v/lim ufjsur-. Now, lot them take thin fuct into coiihideratjon, that Fletcher ad a mark of regard to his eho.-tii executors, left them L't each, and yet they futfiid lie gavu Lis friend Parker bills to tliirf larjfe aiuo'aut. Win it conceivable that a man to niggiu-djy isn!' pitrsimotiioiii wculd have given anything , like tho accommodation repw.setit-id by tii«se ),>Hls? It wiia üb.-ui'd to imngiiiG so. Jit was a remarkable f.ict, that continuallylarguamomittfhud t'«'U lii!i (1 in bt-f'.ro hhiuU amouuts, and how wan it that when Fletcher gave Parker uuCMniiHulation he gave it in tho extraordinary manlier these bills were drawn up? Why v. liill for .'.'-47 atid not £2")U, and why ti bill fur £'.)!) lis Hi (Hid not £100 i . All these bills were, to v.-c « i^Uiug , phrase, very fishy indeed. Why were jio.t .the billd put through tho ordinary manner, iv tfc« Bank, mid not through a discounter at a large rate

of discount ir Tlie bill.s on thu face carried th-jir Oku condemnation, and fraud would bo patent, to the jury on examining tlium. Tlh.tu was a bill Uisfcjauiitmii , history which thjy would not call tLe u.idb;nry of lni"ini;Hii, ;md In; put thi.s W.ue tv thi'Mi — Did they bclievo thesn doouinonU bud bueii altered fmuduluntly, it.tjd that tho bills were CXiuterfoits?

Mr AkLeuu C,..11,,wed on behalf <,£ t!»u plaiutiil'. Cue or tv.-o in.ulu in t(jv! courm; of cvo.-.s-L'xamiiiation agaii)f.! 2lr Brown were absolutely and utterly without. \h,-. eliwhtcst J'tniiidathji. Tiny i-.-uU m>l holp pubhc jfc.sisip. and wlmt" imj» iiimcu, llioy were utloriy uiiliiilu tv mud .st;iK:itn;iitr< miide at the corn..-:-., of .sU.xt.i and other plnm;s of public ri'.-ori: bui lie askc.l them tv Jo their »t!i.'i«t :..j (JisiiiJHs uiiytliiiirf of thy tso't from thfir niiiifl.-i, al ;i only try 10 Wfiifh the evi-.ienct! before them. They would ft.'.'! thin r,y:np-uhy f<,r tb. o p"!,auti<j, that h« had been the viulim of iitciwtitiuJi:' svhioh hti had hail no (ippurmuity o f meeti.i(T. .'.': that thy bills wen; altered, j could anyone fcsiy that ti.oy v,vre enabled to I l,c uiti'fcil hv thu omie'sioti of i-lou.-U.-i- It I %■-•■;•: ullrcreJ, l'nrh:r Jvinn- left tho .-uLav, tint it, was ii stf;:i;;fo tbi.ijr t.';at Mr Brov.".i did iiot think it worih hin wbiie i.; dtU',ip :i b.i:,knivv. L!;,J:sr)iith. Did He Ui-.-.wii I .'iil'l-.V he \VU. S fr>U;X': No, Ilticl lull bls KllOWil thiii i'.iriii-v -,v.,.-..-.,inur, bi;v.' •,(iu!..i h,- Hi;titiu bun 'r c i t -: i-n-t !tr4t Parker ii.ul l;f.-«-n allowed u> ;.','.■ iwav wilhuut them

evidence upon tbese bills was the fiinlt of the ca'cutora and the misi'oitune ;of the plaintiff. Mr Brown sympathised as much as anyone with the relatives, who did not seem to havo known auything about the discounting of these bills. The point whether Mr Brown was tho holder of these bills was practically admitted ; ho might havo shuffled the matter on to tho bank to take thc-sa proceedings, but he was courageous and took all the responsibility of 'the case himself It might have been better had Mr Brown kept books, but he held that for the good of this action bocks wouldn't havo helped the case one iota: Mr Brown produced his bank book and cheques which wore ample. Was it no evidence of friendship that Fletcher signed Parker's overdraft; there was the fact, and would ono ask a stranger or a friend to do such an act ? If Fletcher gave Parker accommodation to tho extent of £750 there ■was no reason why he should not have given liiin more. Coining to tho question of Parker's handwriting they had a large number of cheques and accounts in which they wouid find a very characteristic irregularity, and they would take intc consideration that Mr Brown had at that time a full knowledgo of the eccentricity of Parker's handwriting , . His friend had pointed out that these bills were not siurgestivo of accommodation, but they found that when a man wanted an accommodation bill he would ask for it not to resemble an accommodation bill, preferring an odd amount to an even number; (hat was a well known fast. The jury were asked to believe that Fletcher had siifued the notes originally for £n and £Bund smaller amounts, but did it not seem odd that Fletcher, after guaranteeing an overdraft for £500, should give Parker bills for fiuch absurd amounts ? Throughout all tho notes produced the jury would notice that Parker invariably commenced small and finished up with a large hand; that was a characteristic irregularity. The jury were asked to believe that Parker had followed along courso of forgery, but tho very appearance of tho bills showed him to have been an honest man. Counsel roviewed the evidence at great length. The jury would havo to consider, whether Mr Brown under all the circumstances used ovory care, and whether there was negligence on Lis part, but ho thought they would find to tho contrary. That it had been shown plaintiff had nothing to bo afraid of, aud that they had come before them with a plain and honest story. In summing up, His Honor said the chief point of the defence, and on which tho jury would have to decide, was that these notes had been altered in a material part after they had been mad* , by Fletcher. Althoughno claim was made upon the two largest bills, yet the jury would havo to consider these as well in forming their judgment upon those the subject of the action. The plaintiff had proved nil he had been called upon to do; proved that tho bills won) made by Parker, and endorsed by Fletcher, aud that Mr Brown, the plaintiff had given valne for thorn. Some of tho remarks made about tho plaintiff were undeserved, and there was not the slightest imputation upon plaintiff's honesty and good faith in tho matter. Hie conduct, though not fraudulent, was very singular, careless, and extraordinary for a man who appeared to bo n man of business find had resided in Napier for a number of years, and representing influential firms in other parts of the colony. It seemed to him to have been a most extraordinary state of affairs. Mr Ikowu had in his hands or at discount, £1870 worth of bills, and ho didn't know or suppose but that tho £1325 bill wa-i still in Parker's hands, as in fiict it was. Hu knew or might ha\e known thtit Parker wtis not in tku most flourishing circumstances. If he had made any enquiry he must havo found that Parker's business was in >\ bad state, to require all those large sums. These bills were all given within the coarse of four months, mid it certainly seemed to bo extraordinary in that ho should not, under these circumstances have mado an application to Fletcher, who was frequently about town ; it was tho most extraordinary negligence possible for a man to commit. With regard to tho bills they would find in them a very great difference in tho mode of handwriting, and they would find, with no exception, thit tho small sum was put in the lower line while tho largo sum was written in the other line. It was for them to say whether it was written at the same time. They would observe that Parker altered his handwriting about half-ii-dozon times in the courso of a single document. There was no apparent crowding in the figures, but that might easily be provided for by lefmng room for them. Tho £225 bill was the worst of the lot; tho two hundred und twenty was written in a cramped hand, while tho live showed a bold hand, indicating that the note had originally been ont> for five pounds. In one of tho £170 bills, if it hud been written at one time, it luoked to him that the writer had ohanged his pen. His Honor criticised all the bills. At this .sUge (1 p.m.) His Honor said the Court would adjourn for lunch, and ho would continue his summing up in tho afternoon. Hie Honor continued his summing up at two. A irood deal of evidence had been given by persons of «'xporietiee in banking matters" and judges of handwriting, and they had given them their views. In answering the question of the alteration of thesH bills the jury would have to bo guided by their own py.-sight. In his mind it was Minply a question of oye-sight, and ho did not attach much importance to the evidence of persons who stated what the jury worn well able to tell for themselves. Parkers hundvvtiting whs written in two different stylo.-', and so it was without doubt; yet it was admitted that tho whole "f this writing was by Pnrker. It was admitted that nt ono tiino Fletcher lent ! his came to Parker for an overdraft, therefore*, was it probable that he would lend his name to thousands for the same man; ie was for the jury to say whether there was a limit to such a thing. It appeared to him that both parties were arguing against their own interest. It was contended that Fletcher was at tho time tho bills were given a shrewd, intelligent, and business-like man by plaintiff, then it seemed improbable that lie would be so foolish us to sign bills of these large amounts. The defendants said that Fletcher was a weakened old man, of iuiemperate habits, then it was hard to say what under those circumstances ho might not commit. The question which would he for them to consider wis, Whs there a material alteration in the bill dated 26th November, 188H, of £308, sinco it was made by Fletcher, and ;i similar question applied to each bill. Thou if they found then* was no inateriil alteration in these bills, of courso thero was an end to tho course, they were good bills, and plaintiff recovered. If they should find thero was a material alt.Wjon in these bills, then they would have a further question submitted to them, did Fletcher by his negligence enable the alterations to bo made. The question for them to consider was, if these bills had beet: altered by writing in tho larger sum above the smaller ones : whether it was negligence on Fletcher's part to put his name through tin- amount when he was writing out the tower line, and if there was nothing written iii tile blanu lino above. That would bo :i question of negligeneo cm tho part, of Fletcher in doing that. And then, if the jury should hold that there was negligence on his part in doing th«t, th»y would havo this further question, whether for want of care on the purt of Brown he had ;»ot discovered U such alteration had been made. That again would depend on whether they thought Brown, before entering into any of them) largo bills, should havo mnde enquiries Ho avoided directing them as to what their verdiot should bo, but felt sure that after discussing the probabilities and improbabilities their verdict would bo carefulW considered.

jfy consent tho following Lshuo was put to the jury :—Was there un alteration ; and if so. what alteration'r Tl;e jury retired to consider their verdict at 'i.'oO p.m.