JUDGE’S DOUBTS.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 May 1926, Page 4

JUDGE’S DOUBTS.

I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.” LABOURER’S BIG LAWSUIT. WANGANUI, May 18. “I don’t believe you,” said Mr Justice Alpers in the Supreme Court today to Samuel H. Shepherd, labourer, plaintiff in an action to unseat A. G. Bigneli from the Licensing Bench. Mr Bignell is a well-known local contractor, and chairman of the" Harbour Board: He held 10-30 shares in Foster’s Hotel, Ltd.-, and on this ground Shepherd asked that lie be unseated. Plaintiff Shepherd told the Bench lie was alone in the action, and was impelled by a sense of justice. “I don’t believe you.” replied the Judge. Shepherd, cross-examined, said he was an employee of Walpole and Patterson, contractors. He did not know if his employers were unsuccessful tenderers for the erection of Foster’s Hotel, for which Bignell was the successful tenderer. Patterson was an unsuccessful candidate at the recent licensing 'poll. Patterson was his brother-in-law, and witness lived in his house for some time. L Mr Bain: What is your particular interest in licensing matters in Wanganui ?—Simply that of a ratepayer. When did you know Bignell was a shareholder in Foster’s?—Not until near the end of March. You did not k-uow at the time of the elections ?—No. His Honour:--Are you quite sure of that? Mr Bain : Is your only objection to Bignell tho fact that lie is a shareholder in Foster’s Ltd. ?—Yes, that is my only objection. Asked if he had seen the contents of a letter in, which Bignell offered to dispose of his shares, thus removing the cause of objection, witness said he had seen the letter, but was alone when he saw it. Ho could not explain his lawyer’s references to “our clients” in his answer to Bignell’s offer.

Mr Bain said the defendant had offered to sell his shares to satisfy the plaintiff, but the offer had been refused.

His Honour: Are you the sole plaintiff or a member of a syndicate?

Shepherd : I am the sole plaintiff

His Honour: You, a labouring man, are embarking on this litigation on your own initiative, paying the costs out of your own pocket?—That is so. No one is assisting you with Hie costs ?—No.

You ask me fo believe that?—A os please.

His Honour: T would rather be relieved of the responsibility. I decline to believe you.

Resuming his cross-examination, MiRain asked witness what he hoped to gain from this action.

Witnes replied that it was justice lie sought. His Honour: This man has a passion for abstract justice. Further questioning the witness his Honour said: “Have you not been advised that this action raises an interesting point of law?” Witness: Yes.

Why have you not been perfectly frank with the Court?—! thought I had been. His Honour: All right, go down. Addressing counsel, his Honour said and witness’ frankness or lack' of frankness would have nothing to do with the legal points raised by the action, hnl lie objected to Shepherd's coming there, and throwing dust in the eyes of the Court, lie was obviously representing certain interests which might he perfectly just and honourable for all his Honour knew. After the hearing of lengthy legal argument, decision was reserved. His Honour said the case raised many unusual points of academic interest.