Supreme Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 56, 10 March 1904, Page 4

Supreme Court.

- ' *FW PLYMOUTH, WEDNESDAY, *** JIAIUIII 9. Before His Honor Mr Justice Edwards. The Supreme Court resumed on Wednesdax morning at 10 o'clock. FLEMINC v. SI'KNCF,.

A • special jury was sworn 1\ i Webster, H. N. lloldwater, 1). SIcAl>V luin. Mild T. Avery. Mr McAllum v \vas chosen foreman. All witnesses wnv ordered out oi Court. This was a case In which Mrs Bessie Fleming, widow oi the late -\lr Juhal Fleming, licensee oi the Comni,Trial lit,lei, in Sti'atiord, sued Mr ... "llofoert Spence, solicitor, oi Slrnl- - lord, lor £.200 for alleged negliT* genre.Mr Jellicoe appeared for the plaintilT. and Mr Myers for the defendant. Sir .Jellicoe, in opening, stated that the late Mr Fleming had entered into a contract to purchase the lease ol the Commercial Hotel in Stratford, but died before complet- .«• ing the transact ion. Mrs Fleming completed it, and became lessee and licensee. Shortly afterwards a man - named O'SuUivan was robbed in the hotel, and during the trial of S. Ulair, who was acquitted of the charge in the Supreme Court, some •; facts were brought to light which resulted in Mrs Fleming being proceeded against, for allowing drunken- - ness on her licensed premise*. The summons was served on her in Xo- , voniljer, and she thereupon consulted Messrs Malone, McVeagh and Anderi, son, her solicitors, but afterwards, ' for reasons which would be disi closed, put the case in thw hands of 1 Mr Robert Spence. On that day, Mr l'ollock, the landlord, consulted Mr "? Samuel, his "solicitor, in Xew Plyj - -mouth. The landlord was entitled jj; to re-enter and obtain a forfeiture jT, of tile lease if Mrs Fleming were „f/- -convicted on this charge. Oddly enough, both Mr Pollock and Mr ■w - Samuel came to the conclusion that . Mrs Fleming was guilty, and even- » tually it was "decided that Mr Samuel should go to Stratford on j the day of the hearing in order to £ get Mrs Fleming out of possession S-' as happily as possible. On Oct. 13 the case was adjourned. On that k dttte negotiations took place bejl* tween, Mr Samuel and Mr Spence, ft . but the subject of the negotiations pv* was not disclosed by Mr i-ipence to f Mrs Fleming. Mr Spence, although he was employed by Mrs Fleming to u defend her interests in a charge ~ which might involve her in complete ruin, did nothing in her defence, but tried to get Mrs Fleming to transr ler her license from herself to Mr consideration, but with the option of finding within six months a purchaser of whom Mr Pollock should ; approve. If she could not find such . purchaser, then she was to forfeit the lease. Mr Spence led up to this by previously telling her that he had been to see the Magistrate, Mr . . Stanford, and discussed the matter of the charge with him ; and that the Magistrate said that in view of ■ i, the remarks of Mr Justice Edwards in the Supreme Court in September he would have no alternative but to convict, or "put a "Blot on the li- « .««•*•" Mr Jellicoe also asked the plaintiff to accompany him to the County Hotel, there to hear this from Mr Stanford's: own lips. The devices failed to induce Mrs Fleming to give up possession, and on the 14th Oct. Mr Spence declined to difend the action against her unless ; She adopted his advice. The plaintiff . had refused to believe that Mr Stanford had ever made the above declaration, but was compelled to obtain professional assistance from Wellington. On Oct. 20 the case was fairly and honestly tried before Mr Stanford and dismissed on its merits lhe questions to be decided were (1) whether this advice was given ,y the ' dyfendant.and (2) whether it w. s X h g ', V r"'., The j" r >' »""* consider the defendant's conduct in reelecting to enquire into.the facts ol a " d ,_ in - wl ' on ely stating iu . CaSO ' )mi pre-judged |. v the Magistrate. On Oct. 20 Mr , t . . bpence delivered his bill of costs I rr? tin , g , to £8 ' and °» # t su «? for the. amount. The case can e I » the Magistrate's Court at t ht rat ford on Dec. 15. Jt r8 i.-i eniill „ issued a subpoena on Mr Stanford V, a V I C T 0f I"' ovin g the falsehood of the statement that the case had been pre-judged. When the u,.se came up Mrs Fleming applied for an ~ adjournment, in order that the caw might ne tried b.v anotlier Alaeis- . trate or justices, as Mr Stanford was a material witness. Mr Stanford however, decided to adjudicate on tlia ease, and gave judgment fur the ; '''""V®- , 0n Jnn - 18 Mr Spence put a bailiff into the house to seize £9 . . from the till to satisfy the claim At this time Mr Fookes, acting for Mr Spence, had received notice that the present proceedings were pending. The judgment being valueless Mr Spence s action in putting j„ a bailiff was trespass. Mr Jellicoe called Mrs Bessie Fleming, the plaintilT, vjho said that when the purchase of the lease of the Stratford Comtner- ' cial Hotel was completed the lease had nine years to run. The pri.e was £ISOO, without stock or furmture. She had carried on the house ever since. She remembered a man being tried for robbing O'Sulllvan in her hotel. It came out in evidence that someone in the hotel had served O'SuUivan with liquor, and that he was drunk. On some remarks bv the Judge proceedings were instituted against her for allowing drunkenness on the premises. She put the - case in the hands of Messrs Molone, McVeagh, ami Anderson, but un Mr Liardet's advice retained Mr Spencc an independent solicitor; as the olhgr firm acted for the landlord. M r Spence said the lease was one-sided, and that she should have had un independent solicitor before. He told her on one Saturday evening that he was going to Xew Plymouth mid he would see Mr Stanford on the matter of the case. Mr Spence did not enquire into the facts of the case, but gave her no hope. On the Monday following Mr Spence said he had seen the Magistrate, ami expressed the opinion that after Judge Edwards' remurks the decision must left conviction. Plaintiff said " t hope not. What will you do now?'' Iksaid " I'll get the case adjo. li ned to-inorrow." On the Tuesdav at lunch time .Mr Spence told her the case had been adjourned, and that same evening lie came again to the hotel and advised her to go down to the County Hotel and ask Mr Stanford what his verdict would be. She partly promised to go. but when sl.e thought over the matter she could not see how she could ask such a question. At about, H o'clock Mr Spence returned, and she told him of this decision. lb said " I iunt. 1 saw him." lie continued that Mr Stanford was of the opinion that a conviction must come; it couldn't bo helped. Mr Samuel's name was not mentioned. On Wednesday, Oct. 11, Mr Spence advised her that the only way out of the difficulty was for her to appear to be ejected, for Mr Pollock to come into the hotel, and for her to endeavour to sell the lease. If she could sell the hotel for £SOOO to a purchaser approved by Mr Pollock, she would get the money. If not she would have to go out with hen clothing anil the value of furniture and stock. She would not agree to the proposal. Mr Spence then said she could not realise Imposition. She would have nothing if she refused to adopt his proposal. Saw Mr Spencc again on Thursday lnorning, and he again urged her to accept the terms he offered, remarking that even then Mr Pollock could have re-entered. She again refused, and he told her if she would not take s--. his advice she could get another / solicitor, as he was advising her for !i>_ "® r S°od. He asked what counsel she would engage, and she answered 'either Mr Skerrett or Mr Jellicoe." Mr Spence advised her to take the 'ormer in preference to Mr Jellicoe, as he stood in greater favour with 1 the Magistrate. Oil Friday Mr came with Mr Liardet to sea They brought some papers for (

her to read, remarking that evidently she did not understand Mr Spence's proposition. She replied that she quite understood, and that she was not going out of the hotel until she was found guilty by the Court. Mr Spence told her that this was her last chance, on account of the proximity of the meeting of the Patea Licensing Committee. She told them she was busy, would not read the papers or listen to their being read, but would wait till Tuesday. She showed Mr Spence a telegram from Mr Skerrett to the effect that he could not appear for her, and said she would endeavour to s»" cure ex-.ludge Martin, of Auckland ; or, failing him, Mr Jellicoe. Sent, for Mr Spence on Saturday and informed him that she had secured Mr Jellicoe. lb- asked if he would be wanted as Well. She said. " i don't think so. How much would it be?" lie said he would act lor JLf>. but she replied that it was costing enough already. On Tuesday the case came before Mr Stanford, S.M., and was dismissed on its merits, on Oct. plaintiff received a bill of costs from Mr Spence, and received a summons for the amount on Dec. The case was lo have been heard on the Tuesday following, and she sent the summons to Mr Jellicoe for his advice. His reply did not reach ! her until that Tuesday evening, so she employed Mr Anderson, solicitor, lo secure an adjournment of the case. This was done. She told Mr Anderson that she would not agree to the case being tried before Mr Stanford, as he had been subpoenaed as a witness. Mr Anderson made a statement to the Court, and afterwards judgment was entered up against her for the amount claimed. On Jan. 18 the baililT came to her house, and, going into her bar, said he had instructions to stand by the till until he got L 9 tis in satisfaction of Mr Spence's claim. On MiAnderson's advice she paid the baililT by cheque. Cross-examined by Mr Myers : Was quite certain that on Friday, Oct. 1(5, Mr Spence told her it was her last chance. Did not know the Patea Licensing Committee sat the day previously. Was quite certain that Mr Spence did not refuse to act for her. Did not think that she had ever sworn that Mr Spence did not advise her to get outside advice, but had done so on her own initiative. (An affidavit was put in in which she said that "the said Robert Spence never suggested that I should secure outside help." Other affidavits denied this also.) The affidavits were prepared, as far as she knew, by Mr Anderson (Malone, McVeagh and Anderson). Mr Spence did not refuse to go on with her case but wpuld have done so under certain conditions. Mr Spence told her that if she did not agree to do what he proposed, she Would have to get outside help ; he could do no more lor her. That was on Thursday, and on Saturday she sent for Mr Spence to obtain from him the copies of the 1 lease and the license ; also to tell him she had secured Mr Jellicoe's 1 services. On that day Mr Spence asked if his services would be required as well as Mr Jellicoe's. Had Mr Jellicoe been unavailable, she i did not think she would have re- ( tained Mr Spence for the Court proceedings on the Tuesday, as she had no faith in him after he had seemed to throw her over. No papers were put before her to sign. After she lost faith in him she would not have entrusted the conduct of the case to [ Mr Spence. She had had a little . difficulty in obtaining a certificate of [ fitness when she went into the hotel. Mr Kenny, at Wanganui, refused the ' rertiJicate, but Mr Stanford granted [ it, and Mr Kenny granted the. license. She had not previously been running a hotel where her license was endorsed, nor had her late husband, nor had he been convicted of ' any breach of the Licensing Act. . When Mr Liardet gave her the recommendation it was about teu . o'clock. lie spoke first, saying, ; "You've been getting into more ' trouble, little woman ?" She said, "It will soon blow over, when one is innocent.'' He asked, "What lawj yer have you got ?" and she anr swered, "Malone, McVeagh and An- \ derson." He said, "You ought to . have an independent lawyer ; they'll be acting for Pollock. (Jet Mr I Spence, as he is all right with Mr » Stanford." She then retained Mr Spence. On a previous occasion Mr P Liardet advised her to place any | case she had in Mr Spence's hands, | as he was engaged to Mr Stan- [ ford's daughter. This bad been said > on several occasions, so often that i she could not tell how many times. » Mr Liardet was frequently in the . house. She knew Mr Leydon well, j The hotel had been bought through his agency. Mr Leydon was a jusi tice, and had been a very old friend » of Mr Fleming's. He had never • suggested that he should sit and • adjudicate on the case in question. . Mr Leydon -had never, with her permission or suggestion, seen Mr . Spence on her behalf. He had not ■ told her of any such interview. Mr , Jellicoe's costs in defending her case 1 in the alleged breach of the Licensing Act were £B4, and a further cheque of some £2 odd. Her paid ' costs in this case were £ll4 so far. She expected Mr Jellicoe to pay Mr • Malone's .lirin. Mr Spence told her ; on Oct. 10 that he was going to ■ New Plymouth' to see "the old man, Mr Stanford," and that they would ■ go through the matter together. Mr 1 Spence had said all along that she 1 must be convicted. Knew that Mr : Spence had acted for lJiain in the alleged robbery case. lie had crossf examined her very severely, and was thus in possession of the facts of the whole business. Knowing this, and , also noting the remarks of the Judge in the Supreme Court, he could not sec how she could avoid a conviction. Had told Mr Spence I that she had no other evidence but „ her own to adduce in defence of the charge of allowing drunkenness on j the premises. After Mr Spence told I her to get other advice, she told , Mr Liardet she was sorry she had > transferred her business to Mr _ Spence from Mr Anderson, as she I now had to engage outside advice. r Knew next morning that Mr Liardet . coinmunicati'd to Mr Spence, but al- [ tered it in the transmission. Never j knew directly that Mr Samuel acted - for Mr Pollock, but heard it on the day the case was adjourned. Did > not sec much of Mr Leydon between > the ?>th and 2<Hh Oct. lie came in I to the house every day during that L time with the exception of tuodavs » when he was in N'ew Plvniouth IHd he heen in town on the day that jlr ' Spence wanted lu-r to see Mr St-,,, ■ lord she would have consulted hi m • "<'""t it. When she en K u K „l Mr ' S|ience on the '.»( h she was a str in • ger to him, yet lie told her lie was going to do this improper thimr of l consulting the .Magistrate. Afr lev •lon was not with i„r when Mr ; S ': 0, ' CL ' - X "»' I'l-vmouil He was present on one occasion al , <lll one only. On , luU . occasion Mr Leydon asked if he (Ml . Spence j could see any li K ht in the affair yet or if lie had mad,- inquiries in x . * mouth. Had sworn that Mr I ev °. n Present, when Mr Spenre said lie had seen Mr Stanford in : , Uvinouth. and that Mr Ktanfonrsa'd 1,0 would have to convict. Z name was She could not tell which interview this was, unless it was Oct. 11> St,., had sworn il was the IL'ili This wis true. Mr l.'-wlon now said the conversation he hud u as u it h Mr Spence on the railway station. She did not know whether Mr Spenre, Mr Wake, or Mr Tookes. any of them, had n set of tin* Ww Zealand T,aw reports. She had never sworn anything on the matter. (The affidavit was read, in which she swore that two of these gentlemen had the reports, and that Mr Spence could have consulted these had he wished to look up the case.) Mr Anderson preparer! the afl'rdavit. He did not read to her the latter portion of the paragraph just quoted. She read the affidavit herself, but she did not see this. Mr Myers : Has it been put In since ? Witness : I did not see it there. 1 His Honor ! You are talking nonsense. Anyone can see that it was

impossible to interpolate those words. The examination was continued : Shu had not seen the clause under notice. It was not Mr Leydon or I .Mi- .McVeagh who used the word "bloi," moaning an endorsement, of the license. The Court adjourned till 2 p.m. On resuming at '2 o'clock lhe crossexamination oi' Mrs Fleming was continued. She suSd Ihat Mr Spence had told her that Mr Sinn- ( ford had said he would do anything I in the world for her (Mrs Fleming). She could not give any reason why he should have said this, except that Mr Stanford held her in high estimation. which she knew was deserved. She did not think it a strange statement. Mr Stanford had known her husband well, and would do anything h<* could for lhe widow and rhildrea. She repeated that up till the Wednesday before the trial she had tint heard anything about any agreement to go out of tin* hotel. (Mr M,\ers read from the allida\it. of .lan. 12, in which this wilness swore she had refused on the previous Tuesday to sign the agreement, and had decided to light the case.) From the Inst. Mr Spence gave her no hope of winning the case. When she had to engage fresh counsel she did not like to go back to Mr McVeagh or Mr Anderson. She didn't listen much to Mr Spence when he spoke about the agreement. On Tuesday evening Sir Spence did ask her to sign this agreement, and she refused. She did not suggest that Mr Samuel and Mr Spence were conspiring to put her out of the hotel. She gave Mr Anderson instructions on Monday evening in the magisterial proceedings Spence v. Fleming, as Mr .lellicoe's reply had not arrived. She handed him no papers till Tuesday evening. On the Monthly night she instructed,Mr Anderson to object to Mr Stanford hearing the case. She did not then 1 mention to Mr Anderson that he 1 might object also on the ground that Mr Spence was engaged or alleged to be engaged to Mr Stanford's daughter. (Witness then contradicted this statement tinder cross-i|ucstion- 1 ing.) When Mr Anderson objected in Court he read from a paper. She did not know who wrote lhe objection there. Mr .Jellicoe wrote it.. It came from Wellington. O'SuUivan was not drunk in her hotel : he ".as drugged and locked up afterwards. He was drugged by lUairt, who got a strong nip of Crawford's whisky for him. Re-examined by Mr Jellicoe : Mr Anderson came to her about making affidavits' in reply to those sworn by Mr Spence. Mr R. L. Stanford, barrister and solicitor in the Supreme Court and Stipendiary Magistrate, said he was in New Plymouth on Oct. 10. 11 and 12 last. He could not say whether or not he saw Mr Spence on the 10th (Saturday) or 11th (Sunday). U was possible. lie Tiad never seen Mr Spence on a Saturday evening after the arrival of the train from south. lle recollected the trial of [ilain for alleged robbery. He knew that Mrs Fleming was charged at Stratford with allowing drunkenness on her licensed premises. Certainly, he had not had any conversation with Mr Spence on the impending charge. He had not at any time or in any place discussed any e.ise with Mr Spence in which lie was engaged or interested, fie had never told Mr Spence that he was not friendly with**Mr Jellicoe. Remembered dismissing the case on its merits, and also remembered ihc aclion Spence v. Fleming. Hefore he adjudicated in the case the clerk gave him to understand that a subpoena was going to be issued, summoning him as a witness. lie decided to sit. and adjudicated on the case, giving judgment for plaintilT by default. To Mr Myers : No evidence was called. Tn Court "Mr Anderson, re(resenting Messrs Malone. McVeagu and Anderson, appeared on behalf of the defendant, saying he had witnesses in Court to prove that on a previous occasion he (Mr Stanford) had told Mr Spence he was going to convict the defendant, and that he had witnesses in Court to swear he had great influence with witness (Mr Stanford), as he was engaged lo his daughter ; and that Mr Liardet would say the same. Mr Anderson asked that those witnesses be called immediately, lie replied that be saw no reason why the ordinary procedure should be varied, and that after evidence for plaintilT had been given, evidence for the defence would be heard. Mr Anderson took up his papers, and left the Court, Mr Anderson said something about witness being subpoenaed. lie replied that he had seen no subpoena, but if he were put in the box it would be It) contradict the statements that MiAnderson said his witnesses could pi;ove. Mr Spence denied the statements imputed to him. Mr Spence was not, and lu'.d not been engaged to witness' daughter. Witness had forwarded a statement of the above proceedings to Mr Samuel, the President of the Law Society in New Plymouth. MrJ.Leydon, auctioneer of Stratford, through whose agency the Commercial Hotel was purchased, said he had been aware that a summons had been served on Mrs Fleming for alleged breach of the Licensing Act. lie had taken an interest in the affair on Mrs Fleming's behalf, as he had been a friend of her late husband since 'OB. He knew that she had engaged Mr Spence to defend the case before the date tixed for the hearing. On Oct. 18, the day fixed for the first hearing, he was away from Stratford. Remembered having spoken to Mr Spence on the previous Saturday in connection with the charge against Mrs Fleming. The conversation took place on the footpath near the Patea bridge. Mr Spence said 'J can't see my way clear out of this in any way. There's bound to be a conviction. However, I'm goiifg uii to New Plymouth this evening, and I'll see what can be done up there ; but J know very well there must be a conviction. I generally see the old man when I go to Xew Plymouth, and I'll see what he can do. The 'old man " was Mr Stanford. His name was mentioned. Witness replied, " 1 wish you luck." Witness taw Mr Spence again on bis return on Monday, meeting him at the train, and walking to the railway gales with him. The latter had told him there was no hope. "It's worst* than it was before. I'm positive there must be a conviction." Asked hint on what authority hr was ko certain, before Hearing, (hat, the case would be lost, Air Spence said, "Vou'lJ I m right," and said further that Ihere Wits only one wny oul of the difficulty, "What way is thai?" wilness asked. Ho replied, "The only way I see out of it would be to transfer the license to another person before the case comes on." Witness said he would as soon lose the ease altogether as do that. That ended the conversation. Had seen ' Mr Spence with Mrs Fleming at the Commercial Hotel once. He believed it was before Mr Kpe.iee went to New Plymouth. The conversat ion was the same as that of the Saturday evening on the railway plattorm. Saw Mr Spence in his ollice belore j,e went to .New phmoiith 11 y o| t<-n spoke to Mr Spence j n the .street about the case, and every tune Mr Spence despaired of winning the case. On the day after the ease -Mr Spence came to ins ofllce and •• ,\fr Leydon, I've goi j,u () a 1 " i'ow with lhe old man Somebody told him thai 1 said | H . \ Vas to give the case against -Mrs I- leming, y ou ( ji ( j n - t I( .||, , jJn| anything?' Witness replied that ha : *; ,M »" ai><«e «sk. • "111 win.' a io! tec to thai '''"l ■' Kiv,n K as a lvason tl.iiiK ahum i„.j UK t . nf ,, lK( .,| Ui . ■ t.uihml s <lau K lm T . T |,<. u-i!H lo K ,. t Mr S| M .,|,. e |J( . '"v,-. i( u,L ' ' vt "- T ' ""-J mm. it lo .Mr S), T]lt . , !", l : ru Mr SIH-mv .aid. Units not exHclly what I w . lllt » win do." t.„ i„ tu ,. wn ; .-"S.ratrord, Oc(„l„r 22m1, 1J0.1.-.Mr SjKiKV,—Denr Kir,-],, ply to your i|iiustions „,y an . swill . jfj tliil.t It any person stated Umt I •sum! you told that the magistrate told you that lie was going to endorse the license of the Commercial Hotel, speaks false, and further I nm prepared to go with you and face my accusers. Re you having

any extra inlhience over Mr K. L. Stanford, S.M., I have too high an opinion of him to entertain such an ii!i-a, and 1 am prepared to meet any person face to face thai would say that i did do or say anything that would bring Mr Stanford's name into disrepute, and further, ! would challenge any remarks of a defama- ; tory character against that gentleman in my presence. With kind regards, 1 remain, Yours most respectfully, JOHN LKYi'O.V" Witness said he gave Mr Spence the letler to help him ; he was always ready lo help anyone that was in trouble. That same day he told Mrs Fleming of lhe letler. To Mr Myers: Witness was out of Stratford for one day between the iMii and 2(Uh October. Was friendly with Airs i-Memiug, and was often in the hotel on business. His business was to sell goods and to see Imw things were get line; on. Had oflen discussed this ease v.ith Mrs Kleming. lie diti not Ihink Mrs Fleming consulted him before engaging Ah Spence. Was not desirous of silting on the bench to hear this case. Knew that justices could not adjudicate in licensing cases. He never told Air Spence that he would like to be on the bench to try this case, nor did he express to Air Stanford it desire lo sit as one of lhe justices in the f:iril action Spence v. Fleming. N'olhing was said by Mr Spence on Friday about seeing Mr .Stanford. Could not swear he was at the Commercial Hotel at an interview between Mrs Fleming and Air Spence on Monday, Oct. 1-. lie did not tell Air Anderson he was taere. lie hail declined to swear to the whole trulh of lhe letter given by him to Air Spence. (Air Alyers pointed out some discrepancies between the witness' aliidavitw and his evidence.) Witness was not one of Mr Spence's clients. Mr Spence always spoke in a confidential way to him. Heiueiubered that .Mr Spence had sworn that he (witness) had tuadu the suggestion that Air Spence should go and see Air Stanford. That was false. He knew such action would be improper. When witness met .Air Spencc he said, "I'm off" lie had heard Air Spence say lhnt afternoon that he was going to see Mr Stanford. Witness was in Stratford on Monday, 112 th October. if Mr Spence said he did not see witness in Stratford on .Monday In* was telling a falsehood. The term "blot" was lirst used by Mr Spence on Monday morning. Witness then believed he had heard the word before, at the Commercial Hotel on the Saturday. Three letters from which the witness' letter to Air Spence was compiled were put in. Witness, continuing, stated he was not in Mr Spence's ollice after the trial on the 120 th except on one day, the 21st October. He was not there on the 22nd. He would definitely swear that his contradiction of the statements re Mr Stanford was not made in Mr Spence's ollice. He could not remember making these statements. endorsing the words of his letter, in Air Spence's office on October Ulsl, or at any other lime, Mt Al\ ers : You jn your lei ler, then, told a pack of lies ? His Honor : That's tin olleiisive way of putting it. Mr Alyers : Then he equivocated ? His Honor : >io, but the letter is not a correct statement of the facts. Witness : I have been lelling the trulh. Witness' examination was continued, dealing with the affidavits. I lis Honor remarked that the affidavit and the letter would not agree, and that the witness had told a falsehood in the letter. The affidavit was to the effect that when Airs Fleming lubl Mr .lellii-oe that Air Spence said he had influence with Air Stanlord, owing to the fact of his relations with the family, he (witness) said "1 can endorse that." Witness said that if Mr Spence's call-book ami Iwo witnesses stated that the interviews of 2lst and 22nd October look place in Mr Spence's office, then he could not contradict that evidence. Wilness now averred that Air Spence did not tell him that Air Stanford had told him (Mr Spence) that he would have to endorse tlw license. The letter of October 22ml gave as true an account as he could give of'what passed between him and Mr Spence. Air Myers : That' will do. Mr Jellicoe: Then, if that letter is true, till \our sworn evidence to-day is false. Mr Alyers objected to the question. Air .Jellicoe (lo witness) : Which is tru<—your e\ideiice or \oiir letter'. 1 Witness gave a lengthy explanation. Mr Jellicoe : If that letter is true, then what you have told us itntlav is untrue? Wilness : I'lwrything I said to-day is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true. I can't see any difference between my evidence and the statement in my letter. The examination of Air Leydon occupied two hours ami live minutes, and on its Conclusion at live o'clock the court adjourned till ten o'clock this morning.