DISTRICT COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 3437, 3 October 1885, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

[ TIMABTJ, Fbidat, Oct. 2nd. (Before His Honor Judgo Ward.) j 1H BiNKBUPTOr. His Honor took his Boat at 11.15 a.m. j Mr H. L. Forster applied nnd was allowod 0 co»t§ out of tho estate of Leo Pastorelli, a , bankrupt, and J. T. Burgess a bankrupt. ' PBODATB. On tho application of Mr M. J. Lynch, j His Honor granted probate of the will of r Richard Peters, deceased, to Margaret 1 Peters, widow of deceased and sole administratrix. CIVIL CASE. ) Madg Hanson v. James Sanderson — Claim I £140. t Mr 0. T. H. Perry, of Messrs Perry and Perry, for plaintiff) Mr J. W. White, of Messrs White, Smithson and Raymond, for ': defendant. This civil case whioh had been previously ! before the Court on Septomber 4th and Beptomber 18th and 19th, was now resumed. I The evidence in this caso has been very voluminous, and as it was published fully ) by us in the Court reports from time to time, it is, we think, not necessary to recapitulate ) all or any portion of it. When tho caso was called on, Mr Perry ) asked leave to call tho Manager of the Bank of New Zealand, Tamuko. The Court he ) said would probably remember » witnoss i named Smith swore ia evidenco that ho had j seon Hanson fill up cheques, and that ho i (Hansen) also brought cheques to Smith which had been filled ifl by him (Hanson). ) He wished to call the Bank Mauager to give i evidence on the*o cheques, i Mr White objected to the application. He i sfcid it hod been understood that the caso had . only been adjourned for tho purpose of hear- > ingthe addresses of counsel. His Honor, after a brief argument, granted , Mr Perry's application, holding that the i witness was called eimply to identify certain ; documents whioh were already in ovidonco. , W. H. Hargreayes, Manager of the Bank ' of New Zealand, Temuka, wac then called by

Mr Perry, and stated that the handwriting in the body of the cheques given by Hansen in favor of Thompson and Smith of Temuka wa9 not Mads Hansen's writing, the signature alone was in Hansen's handwriting. To Mr White witness said he did not bring to Court all the cheques signed by Han sen ; some were out at the Bank, Temuka. Hunsen oponed his account about last March 12 months, and it was not possible for him to have filled in a cheque without witness knowing it. Witness had had many business transactions with Hansen, and always found him a straightforward man ; he bad always carried out his engagements as far as ho was able. Hatiscn had made a promise to witness which he did not keep, and on witness epeakinj? to him about it he replied that he had been " swindled out of some money." Hansen at this tima owed the Bank £220, which he promised to secure by getting a mortgago on his properly at Timnru for £229. This was in January 1885, and in the course of conversation which they had on the subject Hansen informed witnesß that he was about going into a soap works. After Hansen had given the mortgage to Sando and Sanderson, witness met him and asked him what he meant by giving it. Hansen replied "I will pay you in time, but at present I cannot." Hansen seemed very excited at the time To Mr Perry witness said Hansen told him a friend in Timaru would find him (Hansen) the money he owed the Bank on his depositing the deeds of his property ; he would not require to mortgage his property. He said he had had £100, lent to him previously iu a similar way. It was about- April Hansen arranged to pay witness £170 of his overdraft on the agreement that witness would give him time to pay the remainder in. Mr White then commenced his address on behalf of the defence. In opening it, he submitted that the case was one of the cruellest that had ever been brought into a court of justice ;— a case imputing fraud, conspiracy, and perjury to one or more of the parties and witnesses on the defendant's side. The caee of the plaintiff, as it appeared to him, was one mass of perjured statements, which it would be his duty to point out to the Court in tho course of his address after reviewing the evidence given by plaintiff and his witnesses. So far as the plaintiff was concerned, there was hardly one point on which he had given evidence but was, so far ob Mr White saw, a gross error or mistake on his part, or else an intention to commit perjury. Tho opening address of his learned friend was also vary cruel, in so far as matters were spoken of which, if true, would render some of the parties— Sando particularly— liable to a very long term of imprisonment under tho Larceny Act, for executing a valuable security by means of false pretences. Mr Forster, a solicitor of the Supreme Court, had also been shown in an adverse light- as an aider and abettor, because he (Mr Forster) had attested a document which Hansen swore ho had never signed ; or if he did sign it, it was under a mistake, in the belief that it was a partnership agreement. The opeuing was likewise cruel, in that in it were stated reasons for the giving of tho bill of sale by Hasel to Sando and Sanderson — that the business waj a losing one, and that Sando and Sanderson, wishing to dispose of it, took the bill froir Hasel for the purpose of holding him out as the owner of the property and as the person liablo for the debts incurred ; also that, in selling the business, they would be able to show this bill of sale (o Hansen and thus make out that the property was worth £105. He (Mr White) submitted with all confidence that there was no evidence whatever to show that the business was a losing one, and not a particle of evideoeo to bear out the statement tbat the bill of Bale was made use of for Ibe purpose of inducing Hansea to enter into the soap-making business. Therefore the reasons given in the pleadings were altogether outside tho case. After shortly quoting from paragraphs in tho statement of claim, Mr "White said the evidence on which plaintiff sought to support his case was that of himself and daughter, und Hasel. Of the other witnesses, Steadmnn, Hargreares and Mr Forster, he (Mr White) would later on show that the first-named two, although called by plaintiff, had really given evidence in favor of defendant, and that Mr Forater's evidence was altogether in favor of his client also. He would now point out some of the mistakes made by plaintiff in giving his evidence. The first one, made at the outset of liis examination, was with regard to the day ho called on Sando to pay his insurance money. Hansen swore it was on the 16th January, whereas evidence for defendant and the receipt (put in) for the money, showed it was on tho 17th. Hansen also Baid he eaw Sando about the soap works before Miller, and ho had inspected the works. Thij was an error ; it was after, as Miller stated in evidence, ho had seen the factory that he returned and spoko to Snndo about it. Hansen Baid he would deposit the deeds as security ; woidd not give a mortgage j but the fact was, Mr White contended, that the mortgago wns in his mind She whole lime, and he knew all about such transactions, having, as the certificate of title clearly showed, mortgaged his property no less than three times previously, and on each occasion he had signed the mortgage in duplicate form. Proceeding, Mr White next quoted the evidence given by Hunßcn regarding the bill of sale from him to Sando and Sanderson, and said that in this Hans?n had in his (Mr White's) belief committed wilful and corrupt perjury. He then spoke of the interview at Mr Forstcr's ofEco, when Hansen signed tho bill of sale and the mortgage in duplicate, and contrasted the evidenco given by Hansen of the interview witli that given by Sando, Sanderson, Mr Forster and his clerk. Supposing, Mr White said, Mr Forster, defondant and Sando had been in league to rob Hansen, surely it could not be said the clerk was against him also. He reminded Hi9 Honor how clearly tho clerk had given his evidenco, and tho fact also that not having been very long in a solicitor's oflice his mind was likely to bo much imEressed by tha occurrence. Mr White thought e could not say anything too strong on these Eoints, and once more submitted that Hansen ad in his statement committed wilful, gross and corrupt perjury ;— such perjury that if he were over brought beforo a jury in the colony there would be no need for them to retire' from their seats beforo coming to a decision. Hansen's motivo for making theso statements was to mako His Honor believe that tho mortgage had beon wrongly obtained from him, and if he did this ho would without doubt get tho £140 he claimed, and also have tho satisfaction of seeing Sando and Mr Forster in a place where they would not be at all comfortable. Ilansen, however, like most men who attempted unfair practices, made a mistake i ho forgot, when ho positively asserted he had signed only two documonts, to remember that he had signed four documents, all of which wero in evidence. Continuing, Mr White said tho fact of Hansen taking Hatel to Sando's office on tho 24th March, whon the mortgage on the house was again spoken of, was ior the purpose of getting Hasel into tho case as ono of his (Hanson's) witnesses. Then again Hansen's statement that ho had an interview with Sanderson on tho 24th March was entirely wrong, as Sanderson proved, and put in a document bearing out his word, that he was in Christohurch from March 17th to April 2nd. The evidenco given by the plaintiff about Sanderson offering him £i!0 "to be straight with him " was also a gross fabrication, which was made for the purpose of showing Sanderson know Unit, as plaintiff alleged, the mortgage had been improperly obtained. The idea wns most absurd, for if "any wrong-doing or malpractieo had takon place respecting the mortedge Sando and Sanderson would be making a great mistake by taking £20 for it. It would show the defendant had a vorj weak case and causo tho plaintiff to be more eager to go on with it. (Mr Perry : That is tho reason we are hero now ; we havo gone on with it.) Mr White soid tho plaintiff knew quite woll that no such conversation had taken place or offer been made. Then there was a direct contradiction between Hansen, and Sando and Sanderson relative to the giving of ordors j and speaking of the interview between Sando, Haeel and Hansen concerning tbo finding of tho ncc-Msary <-npiUl, Mr Wliito «oid tho oonToraat ion had been so short that it wa» moro probable the interview had lasted only five minutes ; not half-an-hour as stated by Hansen. Speaking of the interviow between Miss Hanson and Hando about the mortgage, Mr White mid it was most unusual to suppoaa.a young girl would go into a, middle-aged mao'i olilce and say " Now tell .me the truth |

have you mortgaged my father's house ? " He now came to the part of Hansen's evidence where ho stated he could not read or write. His Honor : No, Mr White. My notes of his evidence have it " I cannot writing read." Mr White submitted no foreigner would express himself in such language. His Honor :He certainly would do so. A foreigner generally puts the verb at the end of the sentence. Mr White said at all events it had been proved Hanson could road tho newspapers, and he submitted that the witnesses Smith, Franks and Boyd Thompson had proved that Hansen could not only writing read, but writing write. Smith and Thompson had proved that ho could read and understand account sales, and keep tolly of goods delivered to him, and Franks had produced a receipt marked " paid " (spelt correctly), and bearing the contraction " Mar." for March, the day of tho month and the year in figures, and signed with Hansen's name. He again submitted there was copious evidence to prove that Hansen could read, read writing and could write. It being now 1.25 p.m., the Court decided to adjourn for lunch and resume at 2 p.m. At 2 p.m. Mr White resumed his address and spoke till nearly six o'clock. He argued at great length that the plaintifE had entered into the transaction with the defendant with his eyes open and well knowing what he was doing. As regarded the imputation of fraud there was no evidence whatever to bear it out. He dwelt on the fact of the plaintiff having stated ho was an illiterate man, and unable to write in English, or to read writing, whereas proof positive waa shown to the contrary. After speaking for fivo and a half hours, Mr White, at the suggestion of His Honor, postponed the rest of his address till eleven o'clock this morning, Judge Ward at the same t>mo remarking that no timo had been wasted by counsel for tho defendant, the case being a most important one. The Court then adjourned till 11 a.m. today.