LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8376, 2 October 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—In Banco. Wednesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justioe Conolly.) Bank of New Zealand v. Bennett and Another—Judgment.—Mr. Button appeared for the plaintiff. This was a case heard in Napier, on which judgment was deferred. The circumstances arose out of certain promissory noted given by a man named Fletcher, which were alleged to have been falsified by increasing the amounts. They came into the hands of the Bank, which sued on tho full amounts borne on the face of the promissory notes. His Honor, in delivering judgment, said the action was tried at Napier before himself and a special jury. The action was brought on certain p.n.'s made by one Fletcher and endorsed, and they ultimately came to the bank for collection. It whs alleged that fraudulent alterations had been made in the p.n.'s by one Parker, who was now out of the jurisdiction of the colony. The jury found that there were material alterations in the bills, and the plaintiff was therefore debarred except it was shown that there was consent on the part of the maker of the bills or such gross negligence as amounted to assent on his part. The jury found that the bills had been altered, and that the alterations were such ae the Bank ought to have discovered, and judgment must therefore be for the defendant. As to the application for a new trial which had been made by the plaintiff, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, His Honor recited the authorities as to tho grounds on which a new trial ought to be granted, and said the weight of the authorities was that a verdict must stand if it was such as reasonable men could give A Hβ declined, therefore, to disturb the verdict of the jury, and dismissed the application for a new trial with costs.

Brown v. Bennett and Another.—Thia was another case arising out of the same or a simiW set of circumstances. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared in this case for the plaintiff. This action had also been tried at Napier before a special jury, and his Honor now delivered judgment. The plaintiff was the holder of six promissory notes drawn by Fletcher, and the questions were the same as in tiie previous case. His Honor said he was v)f opinion that plaintiff's case failed in regard to four of the notes, but he was entitled to judgment in regard to two of them in which the jury found that there had not been such alterations as the Bank should havedetected. Plaintiff was thereforeentitled to judgment on these two bills for £274 lls tid, with costs on the middle scale, also with allowance for second counsel and for special jury.

Wμ. Coleman v. Charles Agnew Bnow'N.—-This was a Gisborne case, arising on an application by Mr. Kees on motion for the opinion of the Court upon questions referred to in tho registrar's report. Tho matter was somewhat involved. Mr. P.utton appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Theo. Cooper ferthe defendant, and Mr. Rees for claimants interested. The case arose under an Act passed by the Assembly providing for granting deeds to parties of natives without individualising their claims. Mr. Hutton said that he state at once that the plaintiff was not. interested, having sold his interest to the defendant, but it was necessary that he should be before the Court. The only questions in dispute, however, were those between Mr. Cooper and Mr. Rees, and the plaintiff had simply to submit to the ruling of the Court. Mr. Rees, in opening the case, said that there were seven original grantees, one of whom was a minor, and these grantees became joint tenants. They mortgaged to the late Captain Reid, for whose trustees Mr. Button appeared, for a sum of £80, and subsequently Captain Reid purchased the interests of four of the mortgagors, leaving three equities of redemption outstanding. One of thefe, the boy, died, and thus only two were loft, the husband and wife. The wife, by consent of her husband, conveyed her iaterest to VVi Pere, in January, 1889, and she had since died, and the only outstanding equity was that of Hirine, and he sold to Mr. Brown in September, 1882, and Mr. Brown thus became the owner of five shares out of six. The facts submitted by the Registrar were, that the purchase money paid by Captain Roid was £'21 per share, but that he had given credit for trie portion of the mortgage money due by each. Mr. Cooper said he would admit that Captain Reid had retained a portion of the purchase money in payment of the mortgage, but Mr. Rees said that unless more was admitted he M-ould have to ask that the report be referred back to the Registrar. Mr. Cooper said ho was prepared to admit that Captain Reid received the money, but there was no release given to any of the joint mortgagors. Mr. Rees said he would admit that no deed of release had been signed. As ic would cost more to refer the matter back to the Registrar than tho amount in dispute he would consent to the case going on. Ho then proceeded to argue that the purchase of the equity of redemption operated as a release of the charge ; and this boing a joint and several debt tho release to any one of them was the discharge of all, the joint and several debt, being a debt of the whole amount, not of parts of that amount. Hβ quoted authorities in support of his contention. Mr. Cooper's reply had to be deferred until eleven o'clock to-day in consequence of the adjournment of the Court at one o'clock.

POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before Dr. Giles. R.M.]

Druntkenxess.—James Evers was charged with being drunk, and using obscene language in Wellesley-street, on the 30th September. Prisoner pleaded guilty to being drunk, but said he knew nothing of the charge of obscene language. Constable McCoy gave evidence as to the language used, and the arrest of the prisoner. Dr. Giles pointed out that there was a very bad record against him, and imposed a fine of 40s and costs, or in default seven days for the first offence, and 24 hours' imprisonment for using obscene language.

Larceny, —Ellen Honniston was charged with having stolen a pair of boots, the property of Mary Ann Watkins, on the Ist October. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mary Ann Watkins deposed that the accused came to her house in Albert-street, about ninea.m, on the morning in question, and asked for a match. Witness then left the room, and on returning found both the prisoner and the boots gone. Shortly afterw&i'ds she saw the prisoner with the boots under her arm, and witness said that the boots were hers. She replied that witness took them from Mrs. Wingatc. Prisoner was then given in charge and the boots handed over to the police. Win. Fowler and Constable Gordon also gave evidonce. Tho case was then adjourned till Saturday to give the accused opportunity of calling witnesses.

Education Act.—Charles E. Madden was charged with having failed to comply with an order of tho Court to send his child to school. Mr. Brassey appealed for the defendant, and said that notwithstanding all his efforts Mr. Madden found it impossible to keep his boy at school. Dr. Giles said that it he admitted such excuses the law on the subject would become a dead letter. He would impose a fine of 20s and costs. Joseph Draper was charged with a similar offence. Mr. Brassey also appearod in this case, and said that ifc was in all respects similar to tho last. A similar penalty was inflicted.