DUNEDIN S.M. COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 2892, 18 August 1909, Page 53

DUNEDIN S.M. COURT

Tuesday, August 10. (Before Mr H. T. Widdowson, S.M.) Undefended Cases. — Judgment was given for plaintiff ' by default in the followingcases: — Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Seantlebury) v- Robert Kelman (Alexandra), claim £1 lls 6d, for goods supplied, and costs (ss); Johnston, Sons, arid Co (Mr Seantlebury) v. Frank F. Evans (Timaru). claim £1 Is, for goods supplied, and costs (ss) ; Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Seantlebury) v. John T. Williams (Newtown, Wellington), claim £1 9s 6d, for goods supplied, and costs (7s); George H. Smith (Mr Stewart) v^Susan Wilson, claim £4 13s lOd, for goods supplied, and costs (10s) ; Brown, Ewinor, and Co. (Mr Lemon) v. Jaaneu Stewart (Palmerston), claim £21 13s 9d, for goods sold end delivered, and costs (£1 14s) ; Thomas Paite/son and Co. v. George Courtier (North-East Valley), claim £5 5s lid, for fruit supplied, and ?osts (9s) ; Marshall's Proprietary, Ltd. (Mr Scantlebury) v. Harold E. Hodgkinson (Pukeuri Junction), claim 6s 9d, fox- goods supplied, and costs (9s) ; Edmund Ackroyd (Mr Dolamore) v. George Wood, claim £4 19s 9d, for goods supplied, and costs (10s); Wm Spillane (Mr Scurr) v. George Courtier, claim £19 ss, balance due on a promissory note plus interest, and costs (£1 10s 6d)"; Oiago Sports Depot v. Johr Crawford (Gore), claim £20 5s 6d on a'dishonourad promissory note, and costs (£1 14s) In the last case immediate execution was asked for, and granted after the hearing of the evidence of Alexander Dey. A Promissory Note Case. — Donald M'Kenzie (Mr ' Seurr) proceeded against Agnes George, Hastings, on a promissory note for £10. Mr Callan appearad for defendant. — Tho plaintiff said tnat in August, 1907, he received from defendant a promissory note (£10) for money advanced. He had never received any payments on account of the indebtedness. Defendant had- later denied ever having given a promissory note, but the note produced was the one whic"h witness had seen her sign. To Mr Callan: He had paid the money over in sovereigns a little aftsr 5 o'clock on August 6, 1907, in the Dunedin Telegraph Office. He had made the loan because defendant rqpresented to him that her husband, whom he knew very well, had met with an accident, in Ohrietchurch and shs was out of money at the time, as an instalment, due to her from Melbourne, would not lie available for three months. When the promissory note became due on November 9, 1907, it was not met. — Mr Callan here produced a letter written by plaintiff to defendant. Under pressure, plaintiff admitted that it was his. The letter was handed to the magistrate, who, j after reading it, asked* witness if he was ! a married man. Witness said he was. — The defendant swore that she had never signed the promissory note produced. The signature was like hers, but was not hsrs. bho denied that she had ever been in the Telegraph Office with Mr M'Kenzie. Sta had come down from Chri&tchurch in orcbr to g-et some money. She- went to Mr M'Kenzie at the Town Hall, but he said he cofild not give her any, but promised to g?t some from a Mr Millor. She vonr witJi him to Mr Miller's offica and signed a promissory note for £25. Sho did not got £25. but three days afterwards plaintiff met her and gave her £10. It was a falsehood to say that she 'had e' - er «-a. ; 'J her hif-hand had mot ~with an accent and was in tha hospital. She had -»ver received any letter or request for payment from Mr M'Kenzio. To Mr Scurr sho sai<l she wa? a married woman. On bsing asked where she was married she refused to answer, and after pressure from ths Bench admitted that she was not rrai--ricJ. C'w-s-examined further by Mr Seurr she maintained that the signature on the promin-ory noto was like hers, but wa? not hers. —Under instructions from tli3 mag; 6 trate witnes-j then sat in the court and wrote hr-r signature. --Mi: Scurr: You have not practised that signature tlii- 5 morning, have you? — Witness: I never thought of such a tiling. — The Magistrate: Is this your usual signature? — Witness: As far as I know, it i=. — Tha .Magistrate then Paid: This is differ-ent from the signature on Ibe iJTomU'-ory note. — Mr fsnnr: You moan in tho sc-rond " (J '*?— The- Magistrate: Yps. and the second " G '" looks like M'K*»nz"e"s — A comparison of tho two siprnatuvs v.ms then niaclo, and' \vifcnes3 was a-^ked to compare the two signatures and say whether fhat on the promissory nofe was not h<r«. — Witness: I am positive it 13 r.ot: I will roll you why — I never signed anything that had on it "Town Hall, Dunodin." — The Magistrate : Look at tho two sijpiatuces — are they not the same? — Witness: Very much the same. — At this stage the luncheon adjournment was made, it being under-. stood that the original promissory note, signed in Mr Miller's office would be pro^ cured and produced in the afternoon.— On

resuming the promissory note was pro> dueed. It was for £40, not £25.— Without, address from either counsel his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £11 7s 2d, the amount claimed (£10), and interest (£1 7s 2d), and costs (£2 Is).

Thubsdat, August 12. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Undefended Cases.— Judgment for plaintiff was given, by default, in the following cases: — Johnston, Sons, and Co. (Mr Seantlebury) v. Augustus Manning (Hastings), claim £4 14s 6d, books supplied, and costs (11s); Lovell's Flat Coal Company (Mr Moore) v Walter E. Beere (Timaru), claim £2 4s, for goods supplied, and costs (10s) ; Mary Crosswell (Mr Moore) v. George Alexander Wilson, claim 8s 6d r balance due for rent and damage done, and! costs (10s) ; Mark Sinclair (Mr Moore) v. Sarah Ann Hopewell (Burnside), claim £2 7s, for work done, and costs (13s) ; Thomas G. Patrick (Mr Moore) v. Edward M'Nulty, claim £1 16s, balance due on. goods supplied, and costs (10s) ; H. Wise and Co. (Mr Moore) v. Eliza J. WatteiTson (Pahiatua), claim £3, for advertising and goods supplied, and costs (10s) ; R. J. Sprague and Co. (Mr Monkman) v Geo. Manning, claim £1 10s 6d, for goods supplied, and costs (6s); N. Towle (Mr Monkman) v. William Rutherford (North-East Valley), claim 163 7d, for goods supplied, and costs (6s).