BALCLUTHA.

Bruce Herald, Volume IX, Issue 802, 12 May 1876, Page 5

BALCLUTHA.

Wednesday, 3rd May. (Before J. P. Maitland, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. BANK OF NEAV ZEALAND V. AVM. AYSON. Claim of £23 2s 6d for a dishonored bill. Short serA T ice of summons prohibited this case being heard. same v. jas. itonEim. Claim of £97 18s lor dishonored bills. Mr D. Reid appeared ou behalf of the Bauk. No appearance of defendant. £19 had been paid to account. Judgment Avas given for £80 18s, Avith £2 2s costs, and £2 2s professional fees. SAME V. KOHT. ESSOX. Claim of £90 17s for dishonored bill. N"o appearance of defendant. Judgment Avas given for amount claimed, Avith £2 2s costs, and £2 2s professional fees. same v. — cARn. Claim of £35 (5s for dishonored bill. Judgment confessed. £l 5s costs Avere alloAved, and £1 Is professional fees. SAME V. JOHN GKEIG. Claim of £68 4s lOd for a dishonored bill. Judgment for amount claimed, Avith £2 5s costs, and £2 2s professional fees. AY. T. SMITH V. MONTAGUE. Claim of £0 ISs for balance of stores supplied in 1873. Judgment for amount claimed, Avith £1 3s costs. HANK OF NEW ZEALAND V. JOHN DUTTON. Claim of £65 16s 4d for two dishonored bills. Defendant in this case Avas represented by Mr Vv'm. Henderson, who objected to the form of summons, it not stating the calling or residence of the plaintiff. After considerable discussion, the case Avas proceeded Avith. Defendant pleaded not indebted. R. M'Owen, manager of the Bank of XeAV Zealand, proved the bills, and in crossexamination by Mr Henderson, stated that Messrs Stewart and Goav were the drawers of the bills, that they had a considerable overdraft at the Rank, and that the Bank held certain security for the same. Mr Henderson asked if they had not realised upon these securities. Objection Avas here made by Mr Reid to this kind of question, but Mr Henderson contended that it Avas pertinent to the case, as that if he could shoAV that the drawers had paid into the Bank sufficient money to cover their liabilities re dishonored bills in fetation, up to. these. AYbJcb, formed this action,

he should obtain a verdict in favor of his client. He stated that the second bill was given ten days before the first was due, and that it was a renewal of the first, but for a less amount, it having been reduced by a small contra account. Cross-examination continued — He did not know whether the securities had been realised upon. Mr Henderson here applied for a nonsuit against the plaintiffs until they could show that they had any cause of action. His Worship did not consider there were any grounds for the application, and crossexamination Avas continued. Witness said he did not know who paid the last bill into the Bank, but he was sure that he did not receive any intimation of its being a renewal of the first. It was customary for Messrs Stewart and Gow to uplift bills of which they were the drawers. They did not pay dishonored bills by others, but by cheque. It was not the case that they were debited with dishonored bills in one lump sum once a week. Mr Henderson here applied for an adjournment, on the grounds of his having an important witness whom he desired to examine, and who could not go into the case at present. That witness was Mr Stewart, and he desired that he might have counsel for himself, as he was at present iv the hands of the Bank, and therefore should have to protect himself from any impromptu questions. Mr Reid objected to an adjournment, and applied for a judgment. His Worship was of opinion there were no grounds for the adjournment. It was therefore disallowed. Alex. Stewart was then called, and stated that he paid the second bill into the Bank, and at the time informed the manager that the second bill was a renewal of the first. The Bench— Who did you state that to ? Witness — To the Bank manager. By Mr Reid — Pie was quite sure that he stated to the Bank manager that the second bill was a renewal of the first. The reason that he did not obtain the first bill was that it was not due Avhen he lodged the second. Mr M'Owen was again recalled, and stated that he had discounted bills of the present defendant's, and which had been paid. He not remember Mr Stewart saying anything about a renewal. He was certain that nothing was said about it. It was discounted after the other came to maturity. By Mr Henderson — He was in the habit of discounting bills for persons against whom he held dishonored bills ; that is, so long as he was of opinion that the parties were good for the money. His Worship here adjourned the cases of the Bank of New Zealand v, John Pink and M'Kenzie until the 31st insfc., at the same remarking that it rras a pity that business came in such waves. Mr Taylor remarked that the present rush was a tidal wave. Mr M'O wen's cross-examination continued — He produced the local bill discount register, which proved that the first bill was discounted on the Ist of May, 1875. He stated that the bill might have been lodged some time before it was discounted. When dishonored it was transferred to the past due bill book. He did not know whether he served Messrs Stewart and Gow with a written notice of its being dishonored, but could ascertain by his notice book at the Bank. He was certain he gave a verbal notice, and wrote to the acceptor informing him of the bill being dishonored. Mr Henderson contended that no notice of dishonor had been served upon Messrs Stewart and Got, and that it was the practice of the Bank to charge Messrs Stewart and Gow with all dishonord acceptances once a week (Tuesdays). He then requested that the book referred to be at once sent for. This being done, Mr M'Owen stated that no copy of notice appeared in the book, but he regularly served Messrs Stewart and Gow with a slip of all dishonored bills. He did not re« member of any one occasion ever omitting to give them notice of bills unprovided for. The second bill was discounted on the 2nd Feb., 1876. It was lodged some time before. He could not tell when it was lodged without the book whereiu it was entered. (This book was also, sent for.) Stewart and Gow's cheques were honored up to the 9th Feb., 1876. Some were dishonored prior to that date. They began to dishonor about the 4th of Feb., 1876. He did not remember dishonoring any cheques on the 2nd Feb, He did not discount the second bill on the 2nd Feb. knowing that Messrs Stewart and Gow were about to fail. By Mr lleid — They had several bills at present wbjou be knew to be renewals, and upon wliicb. they had taken no action. It is the custom and law that when bills are lodged for discount it is optional with the Bank as to when they should discount the said bills. By Mr Henderson — The second bill was lodged for discount on the 2nd December, 1875, or a week before the first bill was due. Richard London, teller in the Bank of New Zealand, being sworn, stated that he had been in the Bank since June, 1875, and that it was the usual course for the Bank to send notice, either verbal or written, to those for whom bills are dishonored. By Mr Henderson — In the event of there being two endorsers to a bill, it is usual only to intimate the dishonor to the last endorser, or to the party for whom it was discounted. His Worship here adjourned the remaining cases of the Bank of Zealand v. Hislop, Bowers, and Bocherty until Wednesday, the 17th inst., when the Court will sit on Wednesday and Thursday. John Dutton, being called, stated tbat he never spoke to Mr M'Owen about either of the bills until about a month ago. He got notice of the first bill being dishonored about three weeks after he. had renewed it.

.£;* ;Stewart7 r^eitfg--recaUed, stated that : there was no regular practice with the Bank in giving notice of dishonor. Mi* M'Owen '•, usually (tame once a week. He was certain ;he told Mr M'Owen that the first bill was -settled. ; '■ ■' ' '■'■'■' ■' ; ■•_; . ' ■ r By Mr Reid— They might have taken bills as renewals, and omitted to tell Mr M'Owen of their being but in this case he ■was sure he informed him of the second bill of Button's being a renewal of the first. Payment of their cheques was stopped by the Bank about the 2nd of Feb.; when they ("the Bank), got hold of about £4000. There were "some cheque's paid up to the 9th of Feb., but they were only those which they were bound to pay. After Mr Reid had addressed the Bench, His Worship" summed up, remarking that cases of a.similar nature to the present did' not usually pccupy such a length of time, but that that case -wanted a thorough investigation, which he was able to say had bee.n^ fully attended to 'by counsel on both sides. The evidence pointed out that the second bill was given in renewal of the first, but it was contradictory in so far- as the Bank's knowledge of this. The bill bore i othing on the face of it to intimate that it was a renewal. He did not for a moment think but that both of the gentlemen who had given evidence had done so to the best of their knowledge and belief. The evidence showed that the bills were not debited to Messrs Stewart and Gow, but were transferred to the overdue bill book. He therefore thought the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict. It was no doubt a very hard case for the defendant, as he had paid the first bill; but, had Messrs Stewart and Gow's transactions not been so extensive, they would no doubt have noticed that that bill was not charged to them. There was no evidence whatever to show that the Bank had treated that bill as paid. Judgment >yas then given for the amount claimed, less lOs lOd, error in interest charged, together with £2 2s costs of Court, and £2 2s professional costs.