SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1118, 14 June 1867, Page 6

SUPREME COURT. —Civil Sittings.

THURSDAY, JUNE 13. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Moore, and a Special Jury.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at 10 o'clock. CH Am AX V. WAIL. ALLEGED FOHGKBV OF MORTGAGE DEED. This was an action to try the genuiness of a signature to a mortgage deed. Tho plaintiff alleged that he never executed the deed in question, and that it was made and signed by fraud. The defendatu pleaded a general denial of the alleged fraud, and that the deec rras executed by the plaintiff and a Bum of £200 lent to him upon his signing it. The deed was dattd 20th of August, ISC3. The plaintiff is a very old settler at Hokianga,and his case was that he had never empowered his agen IT. S. George, solicitor, formely of Auckland, to make out any deed for him, or to raise money by mortgage on his account, or to negotiate the sale of any property. Mr. MaeCormick appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Gillies, appeared for the defendant. Alexander Chapman, examined by Mr. MacCormick: I live at Hokianga. I have lived there since 1828. I lived in Hokianga first until 1539. I went to live at Kaipara. Went to England and returned in 1808. I owned several allotments of land in Auckland. I had the Crown grants of these lands Oil my return from England. I went to Mr. Marston and to Mr. George, the solicitor, and told them I wanted to lease my property. I left the Crown grants with Mr. George. I gave inst-uctions to lease 10 allotments. This is one of the Crown grants, (frown grant produced.) I have never given instructions to any person to deal with that land in any other way than I have mentioned, I never borrowed money by mortgage on that laid, X never required it. (Mortgage deed produced.) This is not my handwriting subscribed to the deed produced. During July, August, September and October, 1863, I was in Hokianga. I did not see Mr. George, whom I have already mentioned, during those months. I had accounts rendered to me from time to time by Mr. George during 1563. I hold in my hands all the accounts I have received from Mr. George. Mr. Whitaker took exception to the matters of account. The issue was one whether or not the deed vras a forgery, and not what accounts might have been between Mr. Georgp and Mr. Chapman. His Honor said that the issue was very wide. It was not merely a forgery by some person or other, but whether it was a forgery by any person. If that were to, might not a professional account between solicitor and client bo relevant to show that the solicitor had never charged for drawing such a deed, going to show that such a deed had never been Submitted to or seen by the plaintiff. Mr. Whitaker : This is not a professional account, but merely an account current. Mr. Gillies : It is a cash account, Mr. MacCormick : There is one professional item, " your will and duplicate, two guineas." Mr. Whitaker: I object to them being received in evidence. Examination continued : Mr. George collected (he rents. I came to Auckland from Hokianga to receive tho money. I received the account from Mr. George about November, 1863. Mr. Whitaker objected to the accounts being used for the purpose of refreshing tho witness's memory. His Honor allowed the objection. Witness : I never in 1863 received from Mr. George £200. I never gavo Mr. George instructions to raise money on mortgage for me. I have never mortgaged any of my property. I never had any occassion to do it. Somo years ago—in 1861, I sold about 90 acres of land. I have never raised money on mortgage of any land in Auckland. I have j: arted with property I had in T7 ppc-r Queen-street. 1 employed Mr. George in that 'matter. I never employed i George to borrow money for me. j Cross-examined by Mr. Whitaker: I sold some land to Hancock in 180-1. (Deed of sale handed to witness.) This is my signature. This deed is dated 18-18. (Laughter.) (Another deed was handed to witness.) I cannot say whether this signature is mine; it is very like it. Mr. Whitaker: Well, you were not always in such happy circumstance? as not to want money. This deed is a mortgage to W. R. Graham for £200. Witness : I believe this to be my signature. I gave Mr. George on two occasions powers of attorney. One was signed in Hokianga; witnessed by Captain O'Connell and Mr. Wm. Webster—one in Aucklan It is dated 29th July, 185y. I know this second power of attorney. I was not very well when it was signed. It is my signature. Mr. Whitaker: What do you mean ? Witne-s: I was indulging a bit. Mr. Whitaker : Did you get your face smashed on that occasion as it ig now ? Witness : Your roads in Auckland are not like our bush roads where a man could walk straight (Laughter). ° Mr. Whitake: Now look at this deed and then at this other document. ■Witness : Let mo look at the date. Mr. Whitaker : No, ia it your signature ? Witness : I cannot say that it is. Mr. Whitaker: Will yen say that it is not ? Witness : I cannot say. Mr. Whitaker: Then you do not know ? Witness : I do not know. Mr. Whitaker: Then is that what it comes to that you have signed your name very frequently and did not know what you were signing or forgot all about it. Witness : It is too small a signature, and the " p" and " w" are not like my writing. Mr. Whitaker: Now may I infer that you are not able to say from the character of the writing whether it is your handwriting ? Witness : You are right, you may infer that. Mr. Whitaker: You have not been able to swearto your signatures. Now if you were to write y°ur signature, and go to the door, and come back, then could you swear to it from the character of the Wilting ? Witnefs: Well, I do not know that I could. < A number of deeds were put in for the purpose of enabling _ u comparison to be made between the Various signatures. One or two other documents, ■ cheques on Union Bank, the witness said he could i make-nothing of. Witness: I never sold the leased properties. I i intended to live on them in my old age and that thev : should go to my child after my death. Be-examined: The money was borrowed to pur- - chase other property in TJpper Queen-Btreet. (Dis- • puted deeds handed to witness). I doubt this being tiny signature. X can recollect the circumstances •under which. I executed the deeds if I saw this date. '

William Wells, examined : X am a pilot, living at Hokianga. I know the plaintiff. He was Hying at a place called Kohulcohu, in the Hokiauga river. I saw the plaintiff there the 15th and 16th of August. He is a carpenter. He had no work at that time. I can speak to the dato by the arrival of the Eli Whitney. Mr. Kerr (of tlio Onion Bunk of Australia), examined by Mr. MacCormack: I should not think the signature to the deed in question is the same handwriting as that on the cheque. Cross-examined : The signature to the power of attorney, dated July, is like the signature to the deed. Mr. George Webster examined, deposed that the signaturo to tho disputed deed was not in the handwriting of tho plaintiff. (Power of attorney handed to witness). Witnoss did not think the signaturo to the latter document was in plaintiff's handwriting. Mr. Gillies: The signature to the power of attorney is admitted. Elizabeth Martin snid slio was daughter of the plaintiff. Wa3 in Auckland in ISG3, did not see her father about that time. Left Auckland in tho last week of Kovember 18G3. Plaintiff was then living at Hokianga. Know plaintiff's handwriting. The signature to the deed in question was not in plaintiff's handwriting. The witness, in cross examination, also denied the genuineness of tho signatures to several of tho documents whieli wore admitted by the plaintiff to have been signed by him. This concluded the case for tho plaintiff. Mr. Whitaker opened the case for the defendant. Charles S. Georgo, examined by Mr. Gillies, said that he was the snn of Mr. Thomas Shaylo George, a solicitor, formerly practicing in Auckland. Heard from his father Inst from Kelson. His fathor said that he was obliged to leave tho colony. Mr. T. S. George acted as solicitor for tho plaintiff, received rents and debts for him. Saw plaintiff siofn his name on four or five occasions. Tho plaintiff was generally in a state of intoxication when he came to the office of his solicitor- Believed tho signature to the disputed deed to be the signature of the plaintiff. Cross-examined : Paid plaintiff a sum of money on one occasion. It was an amount, not a cheque. The witness was examined as to a great number of payments to tho plaintiff, and spoke to the signatures of the various documonts. Ko-examined: On two occasions Mr. T. 8. George had to go to Hokianga to get tho plaintiff's signature to deeds; one occasion was in 1865, the other in 186 S. j Mr. James Tann Marsden deposed that he firmly believed the signature to the disputed deed to bo in the handwriting of the plaintiff. Witness in cross-examination said that he recommended the plaintiff to lease bis property. The power of attorney shouid be in his (witness's) name, but Mr. (-ieorge made it ontin his ownname. Shortly afterwards separated from Mr. George, who kept tho deeds. The plaintiff was wary when in liquor, and always appeared to know what ho was about. .Alexander Martin, formerly a solicitor, said that he had experience of plaintiff's hand writing. Plaintiff mostly came to Mr. Martin's office in a state of intoxication —more or less. His signature varied according to tho state he was in. Was doubtful about the signature to the disputed deed. Never knew plaintiff to sign his name " Aloxr." It was always A. Chapman. That was the only reason for his doubting tho signature. Mr. Samuel Jackson, of Auckland, solicitor, proved the signature of tho plaintiff to a papor, which signature the plaiutiff had denied. Thomas Stuart, an accountant in the Bauk of Now Zealand, said he had experience for eighteen or nine- ( teen years of signatures, acting in various capacities in the banking business,"both in the colony and elsewhere. Upon a comparison of all tho signatures would say the characteristics of the word Chapman were the same in all, but there was a difference in spelling in the disputed deed in which the signaturo was written •' Alexr. Chapman." Would have no objection to pay a cheque so signed, provided there were no circumstances to induce tho belief that it was a forgery. Mr. Whitaker addressed the jury for the defendant, contending that tho balance of evidence was for the genuineness of tho signature. Mr. MacCormick replied at considerable length. His Honor having carefully summed up, the jury retired at 5 o'clock to consider their verdict. At half-past five the jury returned into Court, their verdict being that the deed dated August 20th, 18(53, was a forgery, which was tant amount to a verdict for tho plaintiff. His Honor inquired of Mr. MacCormick if the other cases on the cause list in which the present plaintiff was concerned, would bo proceeded with. Mr. MacCormick said lie would communicate with counsel on the other side with the view of coming to some arrangement. The Court adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning.

Irc Bankruptcy. (Before Hig Honor Mr. Justice Moore) . Mr. MacCormick rande an application for a vc3tin£ order in the estate of William Guird. His Honrr granted tho order, the estate to be sequestrated until a meeting of the creditors, and August 7th fixed for the day of hearing.