SOLICITOR THROWS UP BRIEF.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1525, 22 August 1912, Page 4

SOLICITOR THROWS UP BRIEF.

» DEVELOPMENTS IN BROSNAHAN CASE. (By Telcgraph.-Prcsa Association.) Auckland, August 21. Jnirthcr developments occurred at tho JJSP w to w dn ' V ' wheil lll « nolion brought by p. p. Brosnahnn (repreMr ° ( i.' y r -A G - who sn«d Mrs. J nry P. Baler, a middle-aged woman (iu. A. M. Mowlem) for JCI2 10s., Ibis being tho amount of u promissory note stated to have been signed by' nor oa November 11 last, plus 15 S . 2,1. interest, was continued. When the case was called on this afternoon Mr.Qunrtloy (plaintiff's solicitor) intimated that ho wished lo throw up his brief, and retire from the case. Sir. Kettlo then asked plaintiff lo copy out the form of a promissory note from his dictation, and took possession of the document. Tho plaintiff was then put in the box, and examined by Mr. Kettle, who asked: "Do you swear that all these documents were written before Mrs. Baler signed them?" Witness: "I am not sure. I wouldn't say that they were, and I wouldn't say that they weren't." Did you swear yesterday that they were written before sho signed them r—"Yes." Did you swear afterwards that tliey were written so to tho best of vou'r knowledge and belief?—"l can't swear. 1 am not certain." AYore they signed' In blank —**[ won't sweur, your Worship." Does that, apply lo all the documents? —''I am not certain about any of them." ' Do you swear that the promissory note) was written out beforehand?—"No, I won't swear. I am not certain." Do yon swear' that tho initials on the stamp are in her hand? Will you swear that you did not put them there?—"l don't recollect, your Worship." Tho document has Uecn in your posses sion since it was drawn. Who would you suggest could have done it?—"lt's no use to swear; 1 don't know." In answer to Mr. Mowlem, witness admitted that ho had been before tho Court at Auckland on a judgment summons on October 13, 1911, and that tho Bench was able to make an order for 2s. Gd. a week only. He could, however, easily explain how ho had been able to lend defendant £\i Ids. a weeks afterwards. He also admitted having been convicted of an indecent act in Wellington in 1907, but explained thnt drink was the causo. Mr. Mowlem: Were you not scnteuced in November last for keeping n disorderly house? Plaintiff: No'; it's absolutely incorrect. I did it to protect tho woman. _ Did you and the woman got six wceke? -"Yes." This concluded the evidence; In giving judgment, Mr. Kettle remarkMi: "I do not wisli to make many remarks about this case, as, obviously, the matter cannot vest here. The documents and ividenre will bo handed over to tho police for further investigation. It will bo sufficient if, I eay that I accept dofondant's evidence rather than plaintiff's, nnd his case must therefore fail. Defendant was subjected to a searching cross-examination, and I adjourned tho case to enable counsel for the plaintiff to investigate further, but he has not dono so, and has retired from tho case. Judgment will bo for defendant with costs.' Mr. Kettlo further expressed a 'hopo that plaintiff would give the police every assistance in their investigations, and Mr,' Mowlem promised to do so.