MIS-READ CHEQUE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 172, 22 July 1910, Page 6

MIS-READ CHEQUE.

A CURIOUS CASE. The case between the Direct Supply Company, in liquidation (Mr. A. b. U. lirown) and Thomas Paton, of Clevedon (Ms. W. E. Moore), claim for £7, adjourned from Tuesday, again came on yesterday afternoon at the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, b.M. The claim was that the plaintiffs mistook a cheque for £4 1/10 pre a ented by the defendant, for ±>11 1/10, and presented change for ' this amount. Evidence to this effect was given by the salesman (Mortimer) and the cashier employed at the D.S.C. at the time, A direct denial was i made for the defence, and the case was adjourned to allow defendant to produce a small book of receipts and expenditure. t The hook, when produced, did not throw any light upon the matter. His Worship said the ease was a curious one, and the onus of proof rested on the plaintiff. There was allegation made that the defendant had received £7 more than he was entitled to, and had kept it. The evidence of the casliier, that she made the mistake in reading the cheque, on account of the failing light, was easy to understand, but although it was possible that the salesman had made the mistake, it was bard to understand how he had done this. On the other hand, the defendant absolutely denied receiving £7 excess' from the salesman, and there was nothing to fix on to show who was to bo believed. The only thing that created a certain amount of doubt in the matter, was that when the defendant was written to and told of the excess of change, he didn't promptly rtfply ; but his Worship, having regard to the fact that the defendant was a farmer, and ■ kept his books in a rough and ready i way, saw nothing to justify him in dis- ! carding the testimony of the defendant Jon that account; and accepting the cviI dfnee of the salesman. It was obvkm3 | that one of the men was not telling Vhr j truth, but it was not for him to say who, but just decide whether it had been proved that the defendant received the amount, and there was no proof that he I did. Plaintiffs were non-suited, with | costs to the defendant.