RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume XX, Issue 1522, 13 February 1891, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa: Thursday, February 12,

Before W. Penlington and A. H.

Westenba, Esqß., J.'sP.

P. CaMaghan v. J. Brown. Claim, £18 Iβ 8d on 1.0. U. end intereet.

Mr Potts for plaintiff, and Mr Henning for defendant. .'- ■

Patrick O'Callaghan. sworn, said—l am a farmer residing at Barry'e Bay. I have sued defendant on an f.0.U,, which I produce. Defendant has several times promised to pay me. Cross-examined by Mr Henning—l have had no dealings with defendant since 1886. Defendant told me as it was past four years I could not get the money, thinking four years was the limitation. I saw both defendant and his eon Samuel sigo the LOU.

Joseph Brown, eworn, said—[ wae not able to pmcure my discharge to produce to-day. I got it in 1887, after giving the 1.0. U. in question. Mr Henning contended that the debt had been discharged by the Bankruptcy of Brown, and produced letter from Official Assignee to effect that Brown filed in 1885, and received his discharge in 1887. The lO.U. wa& dated 1886 before the discharge. He further contended the 1.0. U. was not an 1.0 U. because it was signed hy two people, both of whom must be cued.

Mr Potte contended that as the LOU. was given after the bankruptcy, it did not matter when the defendant got hie discharge, as that would not in any way affect the I O.U. He argued the 1.0. U. was perfectly valid, and as regarded the necessity of joining both parties signing, quoted olauae 27 of the R.M. Act, showing it was nnneoeasary. The Bench gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, as they would not ko into the question of the defendant's discharge, which there had been any amount of time to procure. No other course than giving this judgment lay open to them Hβ the 1.0 U. was acknowledged to be signed subsequent to the filing.