CLAIM AGAINST BANK.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 162, 11 July 1928, Page 9

CLAIM AGAINST BANK.

CHEQUE DISHONOURED.

TECHNICAL MISTAKES ADMITTED.

SUM PAID INTO COURT AWARDED.

The hearing of a claim for £500 general damages by Morice Greville, of Dargaville, medical practitioner (Mr. Greville) against the Bank of New Zealand (Mr. Richmond) for alleged breaches of agreements occupied Mr. Justice McGregor in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon.

Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, said that on April 22, 1927, he had arranged an overdraft of £289 with the manager of the defendant bank at Paparoa. It was agreed that he could operate on the bank up to £289 until he was notified by the manager. On June 16 he drew a cheque for £65 which was dishonoured by the bank. At the time there was sufficient credit at the bank to pay such cheque without exceeding the overdraft Four other cheques were also dishonoured. On July 5 he received written notice calling in the amount of the overdraft. For this breach of agreement plaintiff claimed £250.

As a further and separate cause of action plaintiff stated that in September, 1927, he arranged an overdraft for £50 with the manager of the defendant bank at Dargaville, assigning a life policy as security. On October 10 a cheque for t5 was dishonoured by the bank. At the time the cheque was drawn and presented for payment there was a sufficient credit at the bank at Dargaville to pay the cheque without exceeding the overdraft. On October 11 he was notified by the manager at Dargaville that no further overdraft could be allowed at the Dargaville branch, and that plaintiff's credit was on that date £8.

Plaintiff gave lengthy evidence regarding his dealings with the banks at Paparoa and Dargavllle along the lines indicated in the statement of claim.

Cross-examined, plaintiff said the bank at Paparoa pressed for reduction of his overdraft in March, 1926. This was done, but by November the overdraft had increased again. He had made no effort to reduce his overdraft when a further request was made in December. The overdraft was then £244. In 1926 he had three other accounts apart from his ordinary account, and these were overdrawn to the extent of £480, £299 and £200 respectively.

Plaintiff admitted that in 1926 he owed money all over RuaWai to tradespeople. He was now making £500 a year. The trouble was. that he had been unable to obtain his money at Ruawai, where he was owed over £1000. In March last his bank accounts were overdrawn to the extent of £1300. Writs were issued by the bank against him a week before he filed his action. He confessed judgment in each - case, and his guarantors paid the money. His action had been in course of preparation long before the issue of the writs by the bank.

Mr. Richmond admitted that in three cases the dishonours of the cheques were technically unsound, and he was prepared to agree to nominal damages. No evidence had been given on the question of damages, for it had not been shown that the plaintiff's reputation had suffered. The bank had paid into Court £55, which it was considered sufficient to meet th~ case.

Judgment was given the plaintiff for £55, less £10 10/ costs to the bank.