PROMISSORY NOTES.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 86, 11 April 1922, Page 5

PROMISSORY NOTES.

j IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. I A HAMMOXD-CRACKOTLL AFFAIR. SEQUEL TO THE SMASH. An important judgment concerning the matter of a promissory note was delivered by Mr. -T. "W. Poynton, S.M., this morning in the ease of Abbot t. Kunst. (Mr. Lennard for plaintiff and Mr. Matthews for the defendant). "This," said Mr. Poynton, "is a case against ihe maker of a promissory note. Defendant had a transaction through the late firm of Hammond and Cracknell, solicitors. She wished to help her son in a venture. Hammond said it was necessary to pay something at once and got her to sign a promissory note form. She had never signed one before. It was unstamped and blank except for the amount of £50. He gave her a WTitten indemnity promising to pay the money before the maturity of the note. He then discounted it with plaintiff and converted the proceeds to his own use. The defences many, but only these may be considered: "I. Did the failure to present the note on maturity make it of no value to the. holder? "-. Did the want, of a stamp when cashed or signed render it void? ■".">. Did it require presentation? "As to presentation it is doubtful if a note drawn as this is rendered void for non-presentation. Jt has been repeatedly held that the place of presentation imi-i be in the body of the note, and not on the margin or at the bottom. In o" ,, ease where the note ■was printed except names, dates and amount and the place of payment was printed at the bottom a special presentment there was necessary iTrecotuk-k v. Edwin. 1816, 1 .Stark. 4(iS, English and Empire Digest 0. 421. Par. 1344). Where a maker wrote across the face of the note the place of presentation it was held a memorandum ami not in "the body 1 of the note. A peculiarity about this promissory note is that the plaintiff, not the maker, inserted the place of payment. Defendant knew nothing about it. Plaintiff did not present it because he rang up Hammond, who told him that it would be a matter of a few days only when it would be paid. It is contended by plaintiff that Hammond was defendant's agent, and had implied authority to waive presentation, and his request not to present the note was a waiver. Ido not agree. He had no authority to do what he did. It would be rather the other way. Hating given the indemnity it would be to his interest to have the payment delayed. "'After tbe note was due and the smash came to Hammond and Cracknell. defendant was teen by an agent of the plaintiff. JSlie promised to pay if given time. Jt appears to mc that this promise was a waiver of any omission to present, even if it were necessary. The authorities are very conflicting, but Woods v. Dean. 1862, 3 B. and S. (a de- ' cision of three judges) decided that a promise to pay if time were given was a waiver of the right to notice. See also Newton v. Husson. 1914, :iO jW.L.R. pp, and Foster v. Vood-worth, 1908. 8 W.L.R.. CSS (American Reports referred to in "Digest"'.) "'On the question of stamping the clear provision of tbe Stamp Act, 19OS. 71 {- 1 as to the invalidity of a note not stamped when negotiated has been rendered nugatory by Court decisions. (See Sears v. Cook and Gray, 15;, Bank of New Zealand v. Harrison, 6 N.Z.L.R.. p. 78: Walter v. McLaren, X.J5.L.R., 2, 162. "I think defendant is liable. Judgment for amount claimed with costs. Security for appeal, £15 15/. plus costs allowed. \