A DISHONOURED CHEQUE.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 235, 1 October 1920, Page 6

A DISHONOURED CHEQUE.

NINE YEARS OLD. ._I__EGED FRAUD -AND PERJUR-i PALMERSTOX NORTH, Thursday. Reserved judgment in the case F. S. Easton against A. M. Wright, which was heard on September 17 at Foxton, was delivered by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., this afternoon. The magistrate said the plaintiff claimed £'200 upon a dishonoured cheque, {riven by defendant to plaintiff on March 17, 1911, in payment for a racehorse which tlie defendant had purchased from the plaintiff. The cheque was not presented until July 26, 1920, when payment was refused by the bank on account of its being a stale cheque. The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and further that the horse had been taken back by the plaintiff, and that the cheque should have been destroyed, as consideration for it had failed." The plaintiff stated that the cheque was not presented immediately because the defendant had asked him not to present it because he was not in funds, and that the defendant had never let him know when he was in funds. Defendant's counsel had contended that the Statute of Limitations would not start to run until the defendant had notified the plaintiff that he could present the cheque. The cheque, however, was not post-dated and plaintiff could have presented it at any time or asked for payment of the purchase money. The fact that he allowed the defendant some latitude was not sufficient to postpone the operation of tlie statute. The cheque should have bi'en presented within a reasonable lime, at any rate within six months, and tlie time would have run from then. ".My opinion, therefore." said Mr. Stout, '-is that the debt is statute-barred.'' Continuing, the magistrate said: "The evidence shows that the plaintiff's action in presenting the cheque at all was a piece of sharp practice. It is admitted that the defendant was disqualified some few months after the sale of the horse, and the evidence, in my opinion, shows that the plaintiff then* took the horse back and dejilt with it as his own. He leased it to one Trask. who raced it in his own name and it got into place money on three occasions. Trask stated the ] ease was in writing and registered With the .racing authorities and that he had paid 20 per cent, of the winnings to the plaintiff, and further that the plaintin, alter tha horse had broken down presented it to Trask. Trask's evidence is corroborated by the defendant, and also by the -Turf Register." and I understand that'the lease 'Easton to irask was actually registered, and was for a period of two year., and expired on May 15, 1915. This'was not actu ally proved in Court, but information was obtained later by letter from tlie secretary of the racing authorities, a„----1 have no reason to doubt it "East on therefore knew, when he presented the cheque, that he had called the sale off when defendant- was disqualified, and he therefore was guilty of fraud in presenting the cheque some seven years after cc had taken the horse back "Further he, in my opinion, committed deliberate perjury and attempted wilfully to mislead the Court in denying that he _had taken the horse back, that he had :eased it to Trask, and that he had subsequently presented it to Trask. As this is the view I take of his evidence I would fail in my duty if I took no official notice of has conduct. I have, therefore, directed his prosecution for perjury." Judgment was given for the defendant, wjt_ the usual costs.