WORDS IN COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17297, 22 October 1919, Page 11

WORDS IN COURT.

COUNSEL AX VARIANCE. ■ i & DISPUTED SIGNATURE. INCIDENT AT HAMILTON. [BT TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Tuesday. Some strong language was used by counsel in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court, yesterday, during the hearing of a case in which James Bankier, farmer, of Ruakura, sued Thomas E. Short, land agent, of Hamilton, for £62 10s, which plaintiff alleged Short had wrongfully detained as commission on the sale of certain land.

Mr. H. Gillies (for plaintiff) said that the agreement between the parties was that plaintiff should only be charged commission on equity, whereas defendant had charged it on the full priceMr. Hunt, acting for defendant, said there was an original authority, on tho form of Griffiths and Co., dated May 31, 1918, for the sale or exchange ot the whole farm of 286 acres, at £36 per acre. Subsequently Bankier gave an authority for the sale only of 154£ acres. On the first authority there was a stipulation that payment should bo made on equity only, but on the second authority there was no such stipulation. Mr. Gillies said that with regard to tho second authority, his client alleged it was a forgery. If Mr. Hunt would consent to have the signature examined by axperts, and they did not consider the second authority a fraud, he was prepared to abandon lvs claim. Mr. Hunt having- consented to this course, Mr, Gillies *as preparing to take the documents for examination into another room when Mr. Hunt objected. A grave charge, he said, had been made against his client, and he not going to allow the documents out of his sight. Mr. Gillies informed His Worship of the position, and said he would like his consent to the doc.u being examined in Chambers in the presence of a Court official.

Mr. Hunt said he would on no account consent to the documents leaving the Court. His client's reputation was involved, and he was not going to allow the documents out of his sight. Mr. Gillies: Surely my friend does not suggest that 1 am going to manipulate the signatures. Mr. Hunt: I am not going to risk any juggling with the documents, and I certainly will not permit them out of my sight. ' , Mr. Gillies: All tight; as you please, you insulting brute. Mr. Hunt: I will not take that, lour Worship. , _ T ... His Worship: What is that. I did not hear. . . Mr. Hunt: He -ailed me an insulting brute. Mr. Gillies: And I repeat it. His Worship: You have no right to make such a statement Mr Gillies: I apologise for making such a remark in Court, Your Worship, but 1 hold ray private opinion still. \fter the signatures had been examined, Mr. Gillies said the experts could not swear that the signature on the second document was a forgery- Consequently he was prepared to abandon the. case. Mr Hunt said he thought ho owed it to hi* client, and the- Court owed it to , him also, that something should be said regarding the grave accusation made against him. Mr. Tassell, who was now the manager of Short's Hamilton branch, had nothing whatever to do with obtaining the signature to the document, which was obtained by an independent salesman named Wolf, who was present in Court to i say that he saw Bankier sign it. "I cannot,'' added Mr. Hunt, " characterise too stronglv the impropriety of making such an outrageous charge when there is not one tittle of evidence to support it, and I say advisedly that my friend's conduct is quit* improper. His Worship" said he was satisfied with Mr. Hunt's statements.

Mr. Gillies said that in hi» view his conduct was in no way improper. His Worship said he would have to take the statement that the niaintiff had siened and that the had been proved. He save judgment for defendant with £8 17e 4d costs.