A CLAIM FOR RENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3990, 24 July 1915, Page 3

A CLAIM FOR RENT.

PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT HIS INITIALS WERE FORGED. ' JUDGMENT RESERVED. 9ho bearing of a rumple claim for rent developed uum iial features at tb > Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning. Gilbert Honcywood Norris (Mr Blair) proceeded against Robert Henry Smith (ALr Finn) to recover £5 J2s, being rent of a house for seven necks at Ids per week.

Gilbert Honeywood Norris, the plaintiff, said that the defendant was his tenant at the rate of 10s per week. The rent had been paid up to Alarcii 8 fast. No monoy had been paid by the defendant or on liis behalf since that- date. The initialling on the rent book since March 8 was not witness’. Neither had the figures’ 1 showing the rent paid been written in by witness. Witness ruled off bis ledger each time it was balanced, and lie followed the same custom with the rent book the tenant held. This was ruled off. to March 8. The ledger and rent books were handed into Court, and closely scrutinised by His Worship, Mr Finn handing up a magnifying glass to assist. tlie scrutiny. Cross-examined by Mr Firm, plaintiff said that when the rent was paid the book was brought along. lie never at any time kept the rent book lor two or three clays. When witness made a demand for the rent, defendant brought the rent book along, anti showed him the payments initialled. Witness at once told him that anyone could see that the initials were not bis. The initials were not his, and someone had forged bis signature. About April o witness saw defendant in Cobden fcJtreet, and asked him for the rent. Defendant said, ‘'Ob, 1 know 1 owe you £2 or £3,” and witness said, “Oh, it is more than that.” On April o defendant owed £3 4s. After the conversation on April 20, witness did not tell defendant that he had received the money. Witness aid not claim a week’s rent in advance when defendant wa* leaving the bouse. To Air Blair: Witness knew nothing about Airs Smitli’s banking affairs. Witness had been collecting rents for about 20 years, and until recently bad been collecting about £IOO a month for one man. He bad never had a disputed account, “and I have bad some tough rags to deal with, too, the witness added. Lionel Graham Carmine, bank clerk, said be was accustomed to recognising signatures. He knew Air Norris’ signature, as the latter hanked at witness’ bank. Witness said be would not pass tiie last seven signatures in the rent book. They were not, in witness’ opinion, in Air Norris’ handwriting. Tile character G was totally different, and so also were other of the letters. By Mr Finn: The characters in ail the letters in the last seven initials •were totally different from Air Norris' handwriting, Witness was closely examined by Air Finn as to the handwriting in the rent book. Witness said that the characters in Air Norris’ entries were all alike. They were not exactly alike, no mail wrote exactly the same each time he signed his name, but the characters were alike. To Mr Blair; The G of plaintiffs initials had a characteristic twist, which was missing in the hist seven signature* in the rent book. The A 1 bad also a specific character of its own, and this was also missing in the last seven- initials. A man's signature varied, but the characters were the same.

His Worship said that ho had giver, expert evidence in <hand writing before the Supreme Court on two ooenvious in the South Island some years ago. Mr Blair: I don’t suppose you will get into the box. Your Worship? , bus Worship (smilingly)'. Oh, no. f l shall not do that. j Plaintiff, recalled, reiterated that j not a single one of the last seven initials in the rent book had been made by him. Witness told Airs Smith that the amount owing for rent was £5 12s, aim totted it up and marked it for her in her rent book. She did not dispute the amount, and said she would go down to the Post ; Office Savings Bank and get the money, | Ml* Finn said tile defence was that < che amount had been paid. Robert Henry Smith, the defendant, said that plaintiff came to •witness’ house on April 21, and asked what about the rent due.' Witness said, “There are only four weeks due, are there not?” Plaintiff replied, “No, there are six weeks ,due."’ Witness told pfaintiff that Airs Smith was down at the post office getting sonic money. Airs Smith drew out £5 that day. Witness went round and saw plaintiff as soon as ho received the summons, and asked him the meaning of it. Plaintiff said that, the rent had not been paid. Witness then produced his rent book, ami showed him where the rent had been paid and the payments initialled. Plaintiff and his daughter then both said that Airs ‘Smith had forged the initials. Miss Norris said that they heard that witness gave Airs Smith the money to pay the. rent, but she luid not done so, and had forged the signatures. At His Worship's direction, deiemlant then- wrote the figures.from 1 to 10, the word “April,” and also the initials “G.H.N.,” which were handed up to the Magistrate. Ethel Alary Smith, wife of the defendant, said that they did not owe the money, as the rent had been paid. Witness paid plaintiff -C-! on April 20, which paid the rent up to the time they left the house. Witness paid the amount on the Tuesday, and thus paid up to the following Monday. Witness paid plaintiff in his own house, and no one else was present when payment was made. After pacing the £4, plaintiff kept the rent book for two days before returning it'By Air Blair: Witness know it was a Tuesday on. which she paid the £4, as it was her birthday the next day. Since receiving tin; took hack from Mr Norris, tlve rent book had been in witness’ possession. Witness never saw any of the initials' made in the rent book, as -ach time the rent was paid Air Norris used to keep the hook for a (lav or so, and sometimes t.'...

/

used to have to send in for it. At the direction of His Worship, the witness then gave specimens of her handwriting. This closed the case lor the defence. Mr Blair pointed out that the last payment had been made ni a lump suin of £4, and plaintiff had not followed his usual custom of ruling off the ledger, which went to prove thatthe amount had not been paid. Ilis Worship said he woucl go carefully into the case, as the allegation was a very serious one. He would give judgment on Monday morning.