THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 94, 27 November 1869, Page 3

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.)

Thursday, November 25.

John Long appeared to answer a charge preferred against him by the police, of having allowed a heifer to wander in the streets. 'As it appeared that since the date of the offence defendant had lost the heifer and a cow from the effects of tutu, the police asked to be allowed to withdraw the charge, which was granted. A case against some Chinese was called on, but as no interpreter was present, ,it was adjourned till a future day. M'Coombe v. Mervyn. — Claim of £43, damage for non-completion of contract in sale and purchase of 38 pigs. Mr. Mouat (from Mr. M'Keay's office) for plaintiff, and Sir. Keen (from Mr. Ward's office) • for defendant. It appeared that some time since, plaintiff called a sale of stock and other things, intending to leave the country, and that during the sale, the defendant made a private offer for the 38 pigs, and ultimately agreed to give £40 for them. Subsequently, he refused to take delivery, as the pigs were not according to the description given of them at the time of sale. This case lasted nearly two hours, and was argued at great length on both sides. Ultimately, his Worship found for plaintiff, £15 and costs.

Gamble v. M'Lelland.— Claim of £25, on a dishonoured bill of exchange. Mr. Keen for plaintiff, and Mr. Mouat for defendant. The defence set up was that plaintiff had assented to an alteration of the bill, in the shape of an. endorsement renewing it for six months. Defendant only, however, had signed the endorsement, and the plaintiff swore that he had told defendant that it was no good. Moreover, the endorsement was without date, and was written after the bill was due. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs, to be paid by monthly instalments of £6 10s., the first immediately, and execution to issue for entire amount failing payment of any instalment. Mears v. All Soy and others. — This summons had not been served, and, on the application of Mr. Keen, a fresh summons was ordered to issue.

M'Donald and Co. v. Clark. — Claim of £8 7s. 6d. Settled out of Court.

Tuckey v. Leeche. — Claim of £3 9s. Settled out of Court.

Executors of Griffin v. Richards. — Claim of £27, for butcher's meat supplied. Mr. Keen appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Mouat for defendant. The debt was admitted, and a set-off of £60 pleaded, the defendant claiming to recover the difference, viz., £33. The plaintiffs denied their indebtedness.

The defendant, H. C. Richards, was called by Mr. Mouat, and being sworn, deposed that he had been intimate with the late Mr. Griffin — they were townsmen. When defendant left the Hospital, over three years ago, Griffin engaged his services, at £20 a-year, to keep his books and look after his business, as an accountant. This he did up to the time of Griffin's death. Some time in June -last, to save making up accounts between them, a document was drawn up between them, whereby they mutually released each other. It was signed by himself and Griffin. That document he (witness) had given to plaintiffs when they asked him for papers connected with the estate.

• Mr. Mouat here asked Mr. Keen if he had the document.

Mr. Keen : Yes, I have given defendant notice to admit it. [Document produced.] Witness continued : This is the document. That is my signature, and that is the signature of W. Griffin. I saw him sign it. I initialed the stamp, so did Griffin. I saw him do it.

Gross-examined by Mr. Keen — From, the time this document was drawn up, to a few days after Griffin's death, it has been in my possession. Griffin had a duplicate of it, also signed by both of us. I gave it to Dr. Halley and Mr. M'Donald, the plaintiffs, as a discharge of all liability as between myself and the late Mr. Griffin.

Mr. Keen called Dr. Halley, who deposed that he was one of the executors of the late Mr. Griffin. A few days after Griffin's death, witness and Mr. D. John M 'Donald called on Richards, knowing that he had done business for Griffin, and asked for any papers that he might have belonging to Griffin. Richards handed over a lot of paper, and witness then told him that he (Richards) owed money to the estate ; whereupon Richards said that he did not, as he and Griffin had cried quits, and he had a document to prove it. He then' produced the agreement now produced, and directly he (witness) looked at it, he knew that it was a forgery.' It was not Griffin's signature at all. t Mr. Mouat objected to this examinaf -tion, but his Worship' overruled the obj jectionl , . . | * Examination continued — I took the document to you. I did not tell Richards wlutiß I 'thought about" it. I Tiixew Griffin's signature well, and could not mist&ka it. I have seen him sign his' name many times. When Richards gave me this document,, he told me that he had i 1 similar one for me. I owed Griffin a com siderable amount then, and I told Bicl* arda I did not believe' him; He repeated the sjfcaieinent to me subsequently, and t again told him that I did npt believe him! His'ifltatement,was that Griffin. had" eie-

cuted a similar document to this, releasing me from all pecuniary obligations, and this I did not believe. D. J. M 'Donald, called, confirmed the evidence last given. William Edward Farrer — I am agent of the Bank of New South Wales at Lawrence. I have been in a bank for fourteen or fifteen years. I have been here about sis years. I knew the late Mr. Cxriffin for four or five years prior to Ms death, which took place about three months ago. He kept an account at my agency of the Bank. I have seen his signature hundreds of times, and know it well. I have seen him sign his name many times. I could not mistake his signature. [The document was here handed to witness.] "Mr. Keen : Do yoi: see the signature of the late W. Griffin, on that document 1 Witness : I do not. Mr. I^een : Do you see his name 1 Witness : Yes ; but not in his handwriting.

By the Bench : Is that the signature of the late Mr. Griffin ? Witness : It is not. Bench : Do you swear that ?

Witness : I do.

Examination continued — Looking at the entire document, which is in the handwriting of Mr. Richards, thia signature, TV. Griffin, appears to be in the same writing, and written with the same ink. I never knew Griflin to sign Wm, Griffin — he always signed W, Griffin. This signature is not anything like the signature of the late W. Gri&n.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mouat — I can tell Grittin's signature anywhere. I know Richards' handwriting, aad could swear to it. If he altered his hand, I think I could detect it. lam aware that he writes several hands.

His Worship reserved his decision. Herbert and Co. v. M'Coll. — Claim of £35, on dishonoured bill. Verdict for amount claimed, "wuh costs,

Herbert and Co. v." Moms. — Claim of £32 12s. 10d.. Adjourned, on the ajvplication of Mr. Keen, the bill of particulars not being suiiicient.

Tuckey v. Brown. — Claim' of £21 45., for beer supplied. Mr. Keen for, plaintiff, and Mr. Mouat for defendant. Plaintiff, in October, 186S, sold a quantity of beer to defendant, -wlio gave iiini an order on John M'Ooll £or £19/ and promised bo return two hogshead barrel-., which he did not do, and which now swelled the account up to £21 4s. The order was not paid, and plaintiff now sued Brown for it. The defence set up was that the order itself was accepted as satisfaction for the debt, and as it had been kept for a considerable time, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. His Worship reserved his decision.

Friday, November 26. Executors of Griffin v. Richards — His Worship gave judgment. He said that the a«reeinent handed to him by the | defendant Richards, when giving eAddeuce, had been carefully examined by him, and the signature, " Wm. Gaiifin," he had compared with the signatures of the deceased W. Griffin, which had been supplied to him, and he was satisfied that the signature was a forgery. Quite enough had come out to mate out a prima facie case cf forgery. 13/ whom the forgery was committed was a ilitierent matter — but the agreement being, a forgery was of no avail. He was quite satisfied that whoever committed the forgery, Richards must have knowledge of it. The statement made by Richards about the service for L2O a-j'ear he could not accept, and he was, as a Magiatjate, entitled to view it in connection with what he was satisfied with, as the true state of the case relative to the agreement, viz., that it was a forgery.

Judgment for plaintiffs for the amount claimed and costs.

[The defendant was immediately arrested by Coustable Smyth on suspicion of forgery.]