DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2656, 11 October 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. [Before His Honor Jndgo Ward.] The Court sat at ten o’clock. SHBPPAKD V BLACKMOBB.

Mr Holmes for the plaintiff j Mr Harper for the defendant.

This was an notion to recover £SO 18s 7d, money alleged to bo duo on a bill of exchange and interest.

Joseph Oram Sheppatd, the plaintiff, deposed that he was the drawer of the bill produced for £SO. He received it from Mr Amos Tudball to retire a previous bill of £IOO, the other £SO being money which witness owed to Tudball, who was a butcher. The bill was accepted by W. H. Blackmore, When witness first saw it it boro the t odoraement, “Payable at the Union Bank,” and the erasure of another Bank.

Cross-examined by Mr Harper—When I signed the bill it bore Blaokmore’s signature. Tudball told me he would get defendant’s endorsement. I had no conversation with Blaokmoro about the bill until after it was dishonored.

Amos J. Tudball deposed that Blackmore signed the bill in bis presence. It was then complete in its present shape. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—As far as the defendant was concerned the bill was an accommodation bill. Defendant also endorsed the previous bill for £IOO in the same way. The words “Payable at the Union Bank,” ■QI the erasure of the name of another Bank were on the bill when Blackmore signed it. Could not swear that they were in his (witness) writing. Baxter’s name was on the other bill. Did not think he had told Baxter that Sheppard would lose the case because the words " Union Bank” had been put in after Blackmore signed the bill. This was the case for the plaintiff.

Mr Harper called Wm. H. Blackmore, the defendant. He was a railway engine driver. The bill produced was given by him without any value having been received. When he accepted the bill it was in blank. Waa positive that when he endorsed it there was nothing written across its face. The words “ Union Bank of Australia ” were not there, nor any other words. Thought at the time that the previous £IOO bill had been settled. Tudball came and asked him to sign the £SO bill, and he refused, saying that he was getting rather doubtful about this bill business. Tudball said it would be a great assistance to him, and that he would regard it entirely as an accommodation. Witness then signed it, and said it would be the last. Thought Tudball inserted the words £SO. Saw him again on the 16th April. The bill was dated the 14th, Tudball took him to Mr Hadfield, of the Langham Hotel, and said, " This is Mr Blackmore, the signer of that bill.” Hadfield then asked him if he had signed the bill, and he said yes, and that it was all right as far as he knew. Hadfield said, “ I think it is all right. His eyes are pretty well back in his head, and I think be will do.” Believed Hadfield was related to Sheppard. Understood that the object was to see whether he (witness) was a reliable person. Tudball subsequently asked him to sign another bill, as the other one was informal, having been made payable at the wrong Bank, Witness was not aware that the bill had been made payable at any Bank. Refusing to sign the bill, and Tudball persisting, witness said, “Well, see me at the railway station on the morning before I start.” Tudball came in the morning, but witness wn just starting in the train. Sometime afterwards went with Mr Sheppard to the Bank of New Zealand, and saw the bill produced. Told Mr Sheppard the signature was his. Cross-examined by Mr Holmes—When I signed the bill it was ia blank, nothing being written in but the figures £SO, which I believe Tudball filled in at the time. He was to fill up the rest of the bill as he pleased Cross-examined by Mr Harper—The bill was for three months. Understood that the bill was to be filled up in the usual way. Nothing was said about any Bank. Had no aooonnt at a Bank.

Joseph Hadfield—Was proprietor of the Langham Hotel. Kemembered the defendant coming to the hotel one morning with Tudball about a bill. Did not remember seeing the bill produced before. Bamembered something about a bill, but could not swear that he had ever sesn this one baforej

John Baxter, yardman, deposed that his name was cn a previous bill of Tndball’e. Had some conversation with Tudball about the one. Tudball said Sheppard could not recover, as it wai purely a matter of accommodation from time to timet This closed the case. Mr Harper would not trouble the Court with any remarks. It was simply a question of veracity between Mr Tudball and Mr Blackmore.

His Honor thought not. Blackmore, in his cross-examination, had stated that Tudball wa* to fill up tho bill “ as he pleased.” Judgment for plaintiff with cost*. Tho Court then rose.