JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT.

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 63, 7 December 1917, Page 7

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT.

In tho following cases judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default:— Henry Wright v. E. E. Cohen, £2 55., costs 135.; Odlin Timber Co. v. Titos. Rogers, £1 12s. 4d., costs 55.; 0. Wadley and Co. v. E. Bushett, £24 Bs., costs £2 18s.; Blundell Bros. v. J. Herring, £22, costs £2 145.; Vacuum Cleaning Co. v. Mrs. K. T. Dwyor. £2 155., costs 10s.; Veitch and Allan v. W. Kemp, £7 10s. 3d., costs £1 3s. Gd.; J. A. Doherty v. S. K. Mason, £7 35., costs £1 3s 6d; Commercial Agency, Ltd., and Thoa. Horton, Ltd., v. Hugh Craig, £8 3s. 6d., costs £1 3s. 6d.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., and Cycle and Motor Supplies, Ltd., v. T. Stewart, £6 14s. Ba., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Laery, Bevcridee and Co., Ltd., v. Irvine and Roulston, £17 2s. 9d., costs £1 13s. 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Jock Marshall was ordered to pay Wallace and Gibson, £8 Bs. lid. by December 20, in default seven days imprisonment; and James Dykes to pay the Wellington Gas Co. £1 by December 20, in default seven days' imprisonment. A CASE DISMISSED. Michnel Daniel Kilkeary appeared on several charges of forgery and false pretences respecting insurances proP °Chief Detective Boddam prosecuted, and Mr. A. Gray, K. 0., defended. Chief Detective Boddam, in an outlino of the case, said that defendant was an employee of tho Colonial Mutual Lifo Insurance Society. Hβ had been principally in Australia, but latterly bud operated in New Zealand, superintending new business He called on two women in Auckland, and one m Dunedin, and induced them to sign'insurance proposals for policies on their husband's livos, though tho women had not their husbands' consent to do so. The defendant certified that he had seen tho applicant for the policy and was satisfied as to his health. On these proposals the defendant was paid his over-riding commission. Elizabeth Ann Tate, of Duncdin, in the course of evidence, said that defendant and an agent named Culbert called on her and she agroed to take out a policy on the life of her husband, and signed her husband's name to the proposal. She had done business with the company before: she had had two policies with it. She had been quite agreeable after discussion with the agenta to take out the policy. She asked if she would sign the document, and Mr. Kilkeary said: 'Your husband's name." Kilkeary turned to Culbert and remarked: "I suppose that will be all right." Culbert said: On, yes." It was her wieh to take out tho policy to safeguard herself in case of anything happening to her hueband. She had been in the habit of signing her husband's name, as her husband did not bother about these matters. H. T. Tate, husband of the previous witness, said that his wife did all the business and had a general authority to sign his name, though no special authority to sign this particular document. He would not object to his wifo insuring his life. _ Other evidence was given for the prosecution. The defendant was not called on to civo evidence, and the charges were all dismissed. Mr. M'Cartby, S.M., who heard the cases, said that the practice of allowing women to sign their husbands' names was common amongst insurance agents, and must be known to tho company, who, therefore, were not deceived. Defendant had been eent here, it seemed, to infuse life into the company, and had got at lpggerjspads with tho management. He did not think any jury would convict defendant. • , Mr. Gray said that he did not cast any reflection on the police concerning tho case. The Magistrate said there was no reflection on tho police.