MAGISTERIAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 7490, 30 May 1885, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

Friday, May 29. (Before Mr H.'S. Wardell, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was mulcted in tbe usual penalty. CIVIL CASES. Stewart and Co. v. W. Prideaux—Claim, £l3 5s 6d, balance due on a judgment sum* mons. Order was made for the payment of £1 per week. B, M. Lowater v, S, Mason— Claim, £3 16s fid, balance due on a judgment summons. Order made for payment o£ £1 per month. P. McCammiskey r. J, D, Jacobowltch—Claim £1 ids fid, amount of a judgment summons. Ordered to pay 5s per week. Judgment for plaintiffs.—T, Mackay v. A, G. Martelli, £73 17a ; South Pacific Loan Company v. Hudson, £39 ; Wellington Trust and Loan Company v. H, Beazar, £BS 10s, interest due on a mortgage ; W. Bethel v, B. Downey, £1 ; G. Barnes v. W. Warne, £1 18s ; Eliza Donald v, George W. Satter, £6 ; if, K, Hamilton, r. & Hedge, £7 10s (Mr Skerrett Ifor plaintiff). / i New Zealand Aerated Water Company v, James Thomas-—Claim, £l2 10s, amount of application; Allotment fees, and calls on twenty* five ahtfres taken by defendant, licensee of the Panama Hote|, |p the'plaintiff Company. Mr Skerrett for the plaintiff, Mi* Jellicoe toy defendant. It appearpd from the evidence for the plaintiff that when the shares were taken up defendant at the Instance of Mr Fairlie, Mr Thomas was unable to use a pen, and his Rams was signed by a woman supposed to be his wife, Boris Davis, secretary to the Company, deposed that be bad asked Thomas for payment, and that the defendant had replied that be was short of money, and that he had only taken up the shares to assist tbe formation of the Company, The further bearing of the case was adjourned till 4 o'clock the same afternoon. It was resumed at 5 o’clock, whea Mr Davies gave formal evidence as to the entries in tbe books of the Company and the postage of intimations in respect to his shares to' defendant; John Potf, a driver, identiffed signatUre? in a delivery-book ft o those of Mr? Thomas’, £rdt ££r Skerrett asked the to * compare 1 the "handwriting with that of the signature to fffe application for shares. This closed tb£ 6W for the plaintiff. Mr Jellicoe applied for a nohsmt, op. the ground that the date of the application for shares wad pil r to tbe registration of tbo Company. The defence denied tbe signature to the application, or that the defendant had e?er authorised anyone to sign it, and that .defendant had all along refused to take shares, fa spite of the continued solicitations of Mr Davies and Mr Fairlie. James Thomas, the defendant, was called, and de* nied that he had either written, authorised, seen written, or knew anything about the signature to the application for shares. Mr Fairli.c came repeatedly to witness and asked him to take chafes, but witness said he would have nothing to do with the swindle. Could sign his name. Cross-examined ; Had seen his wife’s writing, but be did qbfc know her signature. Had received no notice of allotment Irom the Company, but he hod received several applications Cor payment of fees. No farther evidence wsv taken for the defence. Mr Wardell; in answer to- Mr Skerrett, said he thought tbe nonsuit point raised by Mr Jellicoe was a very strong one. He considered that Mrs Thomas ought to have been called, and he proposed to adjourn tbe case till Tuea. day, in order that she might be pilled. This ww agreed (p, :