THE COURTS.— YESTERDAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7627, 1 June 1888, Page 4

THE COURTS.— YESTERDAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr J. P. Jones and Dr Hislop, J. P. s.) T. Foote v. Sing Long.—L4 14s Gd, for board and lodging, etc. Judgment by default. Dunedin Iron and Wood ware Company v. H. M. Heron.—Ll7 10a 4d, on a dishonored promissory note. —Judgment by default. VV. Harris v. James Cotton.—Lß 10s 3d, for boots supplied.—Judgment by default. Bogg and Wilkinson v. R, Sandilands.•— L 3 3s, balance of account for work done and material supplied. Mr White appeared for plaintiffs ; Mr J. Macgregor for defendant. —Judgment for plaintiffs for 30s, and costs. J. A. Findlay v. T. King, L 6 10s 6d; same v. J. Webster, L 3 5s 6d ; and same v. J. Washer, L 7 2s 10d.-In these cases, claims for confectionery supplied, judgment was given by default for plaintiff, for whom Mr North appeared. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messra W. L. Simpson find G. E. Eliott, J.P.s.) Dsr/NKENNESS. — Mary Ann Quaid, an old offender, was for this offence fined 20a, in defsalt seven dayß' imprisonment. Alleged Breach or the Stamp Act.— John Robjon Wonka* wtw charged with

having unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly executed a transfer of shares in a certain company in which transfer the name of the purchaser of the shares was not written in ink at the time of or before the execution of the transfer. Mr Haggitt appeared in support of the information, Mr F. R. Chapman for the defendant.— Mr Haggitt Baid the information was laid under the provisions of the Stamp Act of 1882, and the sole question for the Bench to determine was whether the provisions of that Act had been infringed. Section 133 of that Act laid down that any transfer of shares must have the name of the purchaser written on it before the execution of the transfer. — George Greville Bridges, Deputy Commissioner of Stamps for Otago, stated that he laid the present information in the ordinary execution of his duty.—Thomas Grose, sharebroker, stated that the signatures to the transfer produced were those of defendant and of himself, the latter as attesting witness. He did not see defendant sign his name, although his own name appeared as attesting witness to defendant's signature. He knew defendant's signature, and knew that this one was his. At the time when the document came into witness's possession the name of Henry North was not on it; witness's clerk added it about July 21 or 22. When defendant signed the paper it was simply a blank form ; there was nothing on it. All the writing, except defendant's signature, was filled in by witness or his clerk. When completed, witness gave the transfer to North, together with the scrip representing 200 shares. About a week or ten days elapsed between defendant signing the paper and its being filled up. To Mr Chapman: Witness had been defendant's broker for some years, and had frequently acted as his agent in selling shares. Defendant used to leave blank transfer forms, with his signature on them, with witness, to do as he liked with. Witness had full authority to fill them up and complete them, and to do what he liked with them. In completing the present one he acted on his authority as defendant's agent. Re-examined : Witness was holding various scrip belonging to defendant, and was empowered to transfer any of his shares to anyone he liked.—Henry North stated that he purchased from Grose some shares in the Big River Extended Gold Mining Company, and the document now produced was the bought note. It was dated June 29, the day on which the transfer took placo. Witness subsequently, towards the latter end of July, received the transfer produced. He had not seen the instrument till it then came into his possession. He received it from Grose. Witness's name was not then filled in as purchaser, and he could not say when it was filled in ; he did not fill it in himself. The document was not complete in other respects ; his belief was thatitcontainedonly thenumbers of the scrip and defendant's signature. Witness kept the transfer till December in the same state, and during the intervening time paid two or three calls. He handed it back to Grose, at his request, in the same condition as he received it in. He first saw it with his name filled in at the hearing of a case in the Resident Magistrate's Court on April 27. To the best of his knowledge that was the first time that he saw his signature on the transfer. The signature of defendant was at that time struck through with pen and ink, which was not the case when witness had the document. To Mr Chapman : Witness was not prepared to swear as to what was written on the document when he received it; to the best of his belief his own name and the consideration money did not appear on it. He could not state on his oath what was on the document. Re-examined : He would swear that his name was not on it when he returned the document to Grose. To Mr Chapman: Witness had sworn that in another Court, but had also heard_ Grose contradict it; that was the matter in controversy between witness and Grose in the Resident Magistrate's Court, and the Resident Magistrate decided against witness.— For the defence Mr Chapman submitted that the Bench should accept Grose's evidence as correct, as had been found in the other Court. North was evidently sore over the fact that he had lost his case in the Resident Magistrate's Court, and had tutored himself into a belief on certain points as to what was written on the transfer, but admitted that he did not know what was really on it. What had been proved in evidence in the case was in no sense an offence under the Act.— Counsel called Alexander Farquharson, clerk to Grose, who stated that he filled in North's name in five places on the transfer befoie witness took it to him.—After legal argument, the Bench reserved their decision till Monday. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Maintenance.- -Thomas O'Connor was charged with failing to contribute towards the support of his wife Sophia and his children Thomas (six months old) and Lillie (two years). Mr Stuart appeared for defendant—Complainant stated that in addition to failing to maintain her, the defendant was in the habit of drinking and of assaulting her, so that she was in fear of her life.— Defendant said that he had always given her Ll2 or Ll3 per month to keep the house, and did not know what she did with it. She was able to drink as well as he did.— His Worship advised the pair to make it up, as being the best course for both to adopt, and adjourned the case for a week to give them an opportunity of doing so. Affiliation. Peter M'Gowan was charged with failing to contribute towards the support of the infant child of Harriet Rowley, of which he is the putative father. Mr Stuart appeared for complainant. The defendant, who is a seaman on board the s.s. Manapouri, did not appear.—After hearing the evidence of the complainant and her mother, His Worship made an order for the payment of 7s per week towards the support of the child, with L2 2s (doctor's expenses) and eosts.