ALLEGED SHARP PRACTICE. An Ingenious Notary.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 81, 20 December 1884, Page 3

ALLEGED SHARP PRACTICE. An Ingenious Notary.

An application to set aside writ of summons in the case of Ernest Henry Wood v. Thos. Harkiss came before Mr Justice Gillies in Chambers on Dec. 17, and led to some rather singular disclosures. Mr Thomas Cotter, who appeared for the defendant and in support of the application, said that there would be no necessity to argue it, as Mr Forwood, the solicitor for the plaintiff, had called at his office and consented to the writ being set aside, as it was clearly irregular. While so making the application, however, he thought it his duty as a solicitor of the Court to draw attention to certain facts stated in defendant's affidavit. Clauses 2 and 3 of the affidavit stated : "That annexed hereto, and marked with the letter A, is a document purporting to be a copy of a writ of summons issued out of thi.s Honourable Court, and which said document was served upon me on the 12th day of October la&b. That lam informed, and verily believe, that at the date mentioned in the said document the solicitor ■whoso name appears on the back thereof, one James Montgomery Speed, had left the colony, and on such date no writ of summons was issued out of this Honourab T e Court against me, the said defendant." If His Honor looked at the writ itself he would see that it was not a case in which a writ had been issued in the hurry of business with the intention of sending it up the next day to the Court, for it would be seen that a number had actually been given to the writ. The plaintiff in the matter was Mr A. D. Bennett, a notary public, who had practically been carrying on business during Mr J. M. Speed's absence in that gentleman's name. The writ purported to be issued by Mr Speed. As soon as Mr Bennett became aware that the defendant had discovered that the writ had never been issued by the Supreme Court, he substituted Mr Ernest Henry Wood as the plaintiff on the promissory note, which had not even been endorsed by Mr Bennett. It did not even purport to be transferred to Wood. Mr Bennett had evidently taken advantage of the Supreme Court forms in his possession to issue the writ of summons with the necessary costs added. His Honor thought it rather a matter for the Law Society to take up, Mr Cotter replied that he thought it better first of all to bring it prominently before His Honor. He was not sure that Mr Bennett had not brought himself within the provisions of the Forgery Act. His Honor said that Mr Cotter had doi c quite right in bringing the matter under his notice, but, of course, he could not, in Chambers, take any action upon it. The Law Society, however, were the proper parties to institute proceedings. This was one of the things for which they were designed, so as to relieve private persons from the unpleasantness which would ba entailed upon them thereby, Mr Cotter promised to bring the matter before the Law Society. The writ was then set aside, with costs, £1 Is, and Court fees.