RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2154, 1 April 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Yesterday. (Before A.C. Strode, Esq., 11. M.) UTTERING. James Grafton, on remand, was charged with uttering a forged bill of exchange for LIOO. Mr Howorth conducted the prosecution, and Mr James Smith appeared for the defence. The following evidence was given; James Gibson, storekeeper, Port Chalmers: I know the prosecutor and prisoner. In September last I was indebted to prisoner in the sum of Lsl, for whch amount 1 had given him my cheque on the Bank of Otago. He was pressing me for payment. I remember se ing Perry the day before I signed the bill produced. I told Grafton I could not not meet it for a week, and he said he would sell me up if I did not do so. It was the day after my conversation with Grafton that I saw Perry. I asked him to come to my store and back" a bill for me, as Grafton would meet him there. After Perry came to the store, in Grafton’s presence, he said that he would not back a bill for more than LSO. I told him that the bill would be of no use to me if it were less than LIOO. After some talk Perry said he would back the bill if Grafton would go halves, which Grafton consented to do, with the understanding that I was to give Perry a bill of sale over my leasehold and furniture to cover the LloO. Perry, speaking to the prisoner, then said, ‘ ‘ Jemmy, you back the bill first, and I’ll back it afterwards.’' I drew out the acceptance and read it over to Perry. Grafton signed the bill as drawer before it was backed by Perry. The The words “without recourse ” were not on the bill when Grafton took it out of my store. The bill was a blank form out of my book. When it left the store there were only two names on the back of the bill. I could not say whether I had it in my hands after Perry signed it. I think my wife was in the store on the day at the time the bill was signed, but I could not swear that she was present on any other occasion when Grafton and Perry were present. She said to Perry, “ I think you have got ample security for your money, and 1 will give you my word of honor that nothing shall be removed out of the house in the event of the bill not being met.” I do not remember Perry sayiny these words, “Jem, don’t be too hai’d; give, him a few days, and if you lose it within those few days I will go in halves.” I saw Grafton on the morning that I went to Perry to ask him to come and sign the bill; and I asked him (Grafton) to come in also. Perry is not correct if ho states that Grafton’s name was written on the back of the bill in his (Perry’s) house. I did not pay the bill. Nothing was said at the time of signing the bill about the words “without recourse. At the time the bill was signed no instructions were given to have the bill of {sale prepared ; they were given afterwards. I gave the instructions to Mr Mausford. [Mr Howorth here read the bill of sale, which witnessed that “in consideration of the sum of one hundred pounds, paid lent, and advanced, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said James Gibson by these presents doth grant and assign to the said Samuel Perry,” &c,] No such sum was paid by Perry; it was given by Grafton. 1 don’t know how the mistake occurred. I told Mr Mansford the facts. Cross-exa-mined : Before the bill was given I owed Grafton Lsl ; and the day it was signed he gave me the balance of the LIOO by cheque. The arrangement that was entered into between Perry and Grafton was that, consequent upon my inability to pay the latter the Lsl 1 owed him, he was to increase the loan another LSO, making me indebted to him in the sum of Lloo—he getting by way of security the personal responsibility of Perry, and Perry in his turn was to Ire indemnified by getting a bill of sale from me over my leasehold and household furniture. It was however agreed between Perry and Grafton that they should go halves. I swear that such an arrangement was made in the words I have already used. I have been in business 15 years, and am pretty -well acquainted with the way of dealing with bills of exchange. 1 do not know that it makes any difference who is the first to back a bill. [Witness was here severely questioned on this point, and after much contradiction, admitted that he now saw for the first time the legal relation of two endorsees of a bill, as to which came first.] I said to Perry “ shall I draw out the security in your name,” and he replied yes. Grafton said he did not care about the security appearing in his name. Evidence was given by Wm Perry, nephew of the prosecutor, to the effect that he was requested by Grafton to endorse the bill, and after much hesitation did so. The words, “without recourse,” were not then on it. By John Cook, manager of the bank of Otago at Port Chalmers, that when the acceptance was first given to him it did not bear the signature “ James Grafton,” and the words, “ without recourse”; that the latter words wore afterwards written, and were in the handwriting of fthe assistant clerk, named Brodrick; that he explained to prisoner the effect of

the words, and told him as drawer of the hill to put his name first, which was done ; and by Sergeant Thompson, who spoke to the prisoner’s arrest, when the latter after being cautioned, said he did not forge the bill; the bank did it; and produced a copy of the bill, saying that he was told to sign it by Cook; and the words “no recourse ” were added afterwards. He also said. “Do 'sou is on Sam’s side. All he can say is that I offered Sam some money not to bring the case into Court; and I suppose it is no harm. ” A iv-inard for a week was applied for and granted, the prisoner being admitted to bail as before.

Tins Day

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Wallace v. Johnson was dismissed for nonappearance. Mason Bros. v. Cruikshauk. —L2 5s 7d. Judgment by default. Nichols v. John Wilson. —Claim of L 4 2s Bd, for wages. Judgment for L 3. Bathgate v. Musson and De Carle.—His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows : —“ Upon consideration of the evidence adduced in this case, I may say that 1 have considerable doubts as to whether the form of taking possession of the furniture, which is relied upon by the defendants, was gone through prior to the filing of the (declaration of insolvency ; but I have no doubt whatever that the defendants did not do bona fide, before they had notice of the intention to file the declaration, what would have been sufficient to have determined the apparent ownership. 1 consider the fact of Henningham’s sleeping out of his home on the night of the 12th January, while his wife and family continued to reside on the premises on which the goods were—therefore retaining the same in their possession—an attempt on the part of Hcnnfcigham, whether in collusion with the defendants or without their knowledge I cannot say, to evade the provisions contained in the 145tb section of the Bankruptcy Act. 1 cannot hold, under the circumstances, that the goods in question were taken out of the apparent ownership of the bankrupt prior to the act of bankruptcy upon which the plaintiff’s title is founded. I feel bound therefore to give judgment for plaintiff. Taking into consideration, however, that the trustee, if he had obtained possession of the goods, would have been bound ta reolise them for the benefit of the estate, I think that the ends of justice will be met by judgment being given for the net amount which the goods have been proved to have realised, viz., L 52 2s. Judgment for plaintiff, L 52 2s, together with costs.