SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9912, 29 July 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

.IN BANCO. PniDAy, Ji;i,y 20

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.)

SIMMS v. BURLEY

The case Bimes (Mr Alncrs) v. Burley (M.r Russell], a claim for £92 ss, was heard.

Tho plaintiff's case was that defendant's sen, Ernest Burley, who was a poultry farmer, had borrowed money from Simes and a/ Miss Morton, who were clients of Mr A. S. Nieholls. The poultry tanning business ended disastrously and'Mr Nieholls was instructed to' press tor the recovery of the money borrowed. A suggestion had been 'made that Barley's father would ncip linn, ana cm august 18 he dc-fin-itelv told Mr N.ieliolis that his father would assist Bnrioy added that his father had authorised him to hand v,v<n- a deed and to act with it so that Simes and Miss Morton would be secured. Tito -ueed was a second mortgage by Burley over bis property to his"father and mother. There was anotiie: mortgage, behind that one. Mr Nichoiis ooiiii-ed out that if the defendant released the mortgage it would not do Simes and Miss Morton any good, owing to the. further mortgage, and the. parties agreed that the mortgage 'should be- transferred to Mr Nieholls as istee for Simes and Miss Morton. V\ iiliam Hurley, tho defendant, gave his consent to the arrangement, and the sou was given three months in which to pay the money, Mr .Nieholls accepting a promissory nolo for £92 3s. J)e fondant left for the West Coast without completing the transfer and Simes took proceedings.

A. S. Is'icholls, in evidence, put 111 a letter iron; <teiondant referring to the possible vclor.se of the mortgage if lie tailed to cot a more direct settlement, lie believed that defendant had m the letter contused the terms "release, and " transfer/' Subsequently a telegram showed that Hurley Doped to make a*cash settlement and ivoulu transfer the. mortgage failing jhat. Simes and -Miss Morton, afc deienuaitts request, proved as creditors in the son's estate. Li answer to Mr Kuesell, witness said that he had not thought of getting- the defendant to endorse, the 'son's promissory note or sicii an agreement fixing his liability, flo thought that defendant was taking the responsibility tor his son's debts. AY. E. Simes gave evidence that the property to which the mortgage referred, was ■ worth about £285 in August. Mr Alpors asked for leave to amend the information and ask for damages, and his' Honor reserved the point. Air Russell said that he was of opinion that Nichclls and , Hurley, iun., had misunderstood each other. Burl'ev, sen., quite realised the justice of Miss Morton's claim, but he had always refused to pay Simes':* claim, winch was for money lent-. Ernest Henry Hurley save evidence that he had purchased a piece of laud through Messrs .Duncan, Cotterill and Stringer. They required security, and he took them the deed, which he showed. He had no authority from his father to show the deed to anyone but the firm in question. Ho signed a promissory note at Kicholls's olfico in favour of Simos, but did not tell Nicholls that he had authority,from iiii father. Defendant; gave evidence that ho had not authorised his son to hand the deed to Nicholls. Ho wished to see Miss Morton secured. The mortgage was in his own and his wife's names. He had not arranged a transfer with Nicholls. This closed the case.

His Honor said that the evidence give?] by the defendant was in direct contradiction of his. letters, unci he could not poo how a man could tell such a story in the box. Nothing could be done for relief until either Miss -Morton or Mrs Hurley were joined. Mr Alpers said that he would apply for loiwe to join Miss Morton, as a defendant if she would not come in as plaintiff. On his Honor's recommend-ation the parties agreed to adjourn t.l.ii> case until the next civil sittings to enable the parties to join other persons if they thought fit. To-morrow his Honor will sit in. Chambers at 11 a.m... and will give judgment in the compensation case Baker v. Brunt. I'Peh 'Press Association.] WELLINGTON, July 29. John Morris Schapiro, a furniture manufacturer, was brought before tho Chief Justice to-day for sentence, for failing to keep proper books. Sir Robert Stout said the prisoner had been under sentence since May 9. and he proposed to sentence him to three months and two weeks' imprisonment, which really meant that he would have to serve a' little under one mouth. Prisoner, in excited tones, exclaimed " It's pure perjury. I don't care if you give rue ton years. It's pure per'jury/' The Judge ordered the pri.soo'er to be brought back, and said: "Instead of serving a sentence of three months and two weeks, you will ho sentenced to four months, with hard labour. Perhaps ,it will teach you to behave yourself when in Court."

August Ecwi Wallace, a young halfcaste," was admitted to probation ib' twelve months for theft from the Otaki Convent, and was ordered to pay £"■ 12s. tho costs of the prosecution. Kenneth M'Gregor, a youth, who came up for sentence for indecent assault at Marion, was admitted to probation owing to his youth. His Honor said that for two such offences prisoner was liable- to an indeterminate sentence. Alfred John Wanstall was sentenced to eighteen month?;' imprisonment for •ireakius; and entering at Ohakune. The Chief Justice s»id the.man would be declared an habitual criminal the next time he was convicted.