Resident Magistrate's Courts

Bruce Herald, Volume IX, Issue 804, 19 May 1876, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Courts

BALCLUTHA. Wednesday, 16th May. (Before J. P. Maitland, Esq., R.M.) Court or Revision. His Worship intimated that the Returning Officer had decided to bold the Court of Revision ofthe list of voters, at Balclutha, ou the 31st inst. ; cases, therefore, set down for hearing on that date would have to be adjourned until tbe 7th June. He intimated that he was willing to sit on Wednesday or Thursday next if the members of the legal profession were willing ; but they objected. Civri. Cases. A>N HUGHES V. THOS. STANIJROOK. Application was made by Mr W. Taylor for evidence ofthe defendant to be taken in tbis case, pending at Dunedin. The evidence of defendant and two witnesses was theu taken. COOK V. SMYTH. Tbis was a claim to recover tbe sum of •£ls los, Mr Taylor stated in tbis case the Justices of the Peace were also connected with the Ivaitangata Railway Company'; be would, therefore, suggest tbat tbe case be beard at Milton. The ca?e was accordingly set down to be heart! at Milton, on Monday, 29th May, at 11 o'clock, j I'OIXOCK V. DAMNET. This was a claim to recover the sum of £3 lis. Mr W. Henderson appeared for the plaintiff, and applied for an adjournment. There was no appearance of tbe defendant. The adjournment was granted for 7th Juue. JOHN DUNNE V. GEORGE FOSTER. This was a claim to recover tbe sum of £8 ls Gd. Judgment for amount claimed, and 14s costs. JOSEPH MAITLAND V. WICKS. This was a claim to recover the sum of £7 16s Gd. i $To appearance,

. I BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V. DAVID HI'INTYKE. This was a claim to recover the sum of * £22 ls 6d, for a dishonored bill of exchange. Mr D. Reid appeared for the plaintiffs, and ' Mr Henderson for the defendant. 1 Mr Henderson pleaded not indebted, denying the acceptance of the bill. ' Mr Reid then called Robert M'Owen, who stated that he was manager of tbe Bauk of New Zealand, and tbat the bill was drawn upon the defendant by Messrs Stewart and Gow, aud endorsed to the Bank by them, lie had written to Mr M'lntyre about it being dishonored, but received no reply. C. Christie, sworn, stated — He was formerly in the employ of Messrs Stewart and Gow, aud remembered calling upon the defendant, at Kaitangata, for the purpose of getting his signature to the acceptance then produced. The defendant signed it upon bis knee, with lead pencil, and he (witness) inked the signature over afterwards. He had done the same on many occasions, but with the distinct understanding and consent of the parties so signing, that the signature should be inked over by him. His Worship here remarked tbat it would have been much more business-like to have carried iuk. Examination continued — That was the only acceptance he ever got from defendant. By Mr Henderson — He was sure that the defendant signed the bill on his knee, and with a lead pencil. He usually, after inking over the pencil signatures, erased the pencil. He understood the bill was a renewal of one given to Mr C Higgins. G. S. Robertson, accountant to Messrs Soutter and Gray, produced Messrs Stewart and Gow's ledger and read the entry therein which acknowledged the bill sued on. David M'lntyre stated — That he remembered Christie calling upon him in October last and asking him to sign a bill, but be did not do it, neither did be authorise Christie to do so for him. He had given a bill to Higgins a few days previous, and it had been lifted for him, when it matured, by Messrs Fuell & Co. By Mr Reid— He was sure he did not sign the bill for Mr Christie either with pencil or otherwise. He could swear he did not sign it although Mr Christie swore tbat he. did. Mr Reid, in addressing the Court, stated that the evidence was of such a very peculiar nature that he could not ask for a verdict. His client had discounted the bill as good, but for tbe present would have to be the loser. His "Worship stated tbat the signature did not bear tbe resemblance of one that had been Avritten in pencil and afterwards inked over, and that it would have been much better to have left the pencil signature, which would have been quite good enough of itself. The plaintiffs were non-suited, tbe [defendant being allowed £l ls, professional costs. Mr Christie again appeared, and said that the statement he made with reference to tbe bill being a renewal of one given to Higgins, was a mistake, and that it was a renewal of one given to Messrs Stewart and Gow for their own account. Judgment having been passed the evidence was then of no use. ! SAME V. JOHN WILSON". Claim of £20 6s for dishonored bill of exchange. Mr D. Reid appeared for the plaintiffs, the defendant not appearing. R. M'Owen stated that he had written to defendant about tbe dishonor, but received no reply. Proof of tbe signature having been given by Mr Stewart, judgment was given for the amount claimed, aud £2 8s costs, with £1 ls professional fees. same v. insr.or. Mr D. Reid for plaintiffs, and Mr W. Henderson together with Mr W. Taylor for defendant. Mr Taylor took objection in tbis case, aud asked upon what authority tbe Bank sued, and upon what authority bis learned friend , appeared. Mr Reid stated that he expected such an objection to be raised hy his learned friend, and be at once admitted that the authority which he held was not tbe correct oue. He , stated that by law, solicitors, before they could appeai-jOn behalf of corporations, must , be appointed under seal, but by the Bank of , Xew Zealand Act of 1861 the necessity of affixing the seal to au appointment on behalf of tbe Bauk was removed, and the appointment must come direct from the Board of directors. Tbis appointment he had not got, he only had a written one from Mr W. C. Roberts, tbe general manager aud attorney for ! the Bank in Dunedin. The authority was then handed to the Magistrate. ' i Mr Reid then submitted tbat the question as to his authority being sufficient was for the Court to decide. If the Court considered it sufficient, theu no appeal could lie on the grounds of insufficient authority to appear. Mr Taylor submitted that tiie authority j held by his learned friend was not sufficient, ' : and that the summonses issued in connection •ivith the case were analogous to a stillborn ohilti-Aevery requisite human appearance, but alas ', no life. lie held tbat no Bank manager < could appoint an attorney, and that power kvy only with a board of directors. He quoted Brogden v. Crowson, His Worship here remarked that more had been made of that case than was necessary. Mr Taylor argued that tbat Court could not hear or adjourn tbe case. The proper authority must be in existence before the summonses could be issued, and the Bank could only sue by an attorney appointed by their board of directors. He held that Mr M'Owen and Mr W. C. Roberts were only servants, and had no more right to sue thau he had. Mr Heid admitted that his authority was, in a legal point of view/ insufficient ; but he cpntefldqcl that, if the case were heard, his*

action would be binding upon the Bank. He stated that the case Brogden v. Crowson cited by Mr Taylor was not in point, as the power of attorney under which that action was brought did not give the attorney power to sue or defend, whereas the Act of 1861 gave the plaintiffs in this case power to suo and be sued in New Zealand. His Worship expressed his regret at the objection having been raised. Mr Reid stated that if the case were adjourned till Monday, he would be in a position to produce Mr Roberts' power of attorney, which no doubt gave that gentleman power to appoint solicitors to act for the Bank. Mr Taylor objected, and pointed out that private individuals could institute legal proceedings and then appoint their solicitor, but with a company who bad no bodies to he kicked or souls to be damned, it was a very different matter. He contended that the summonses issued were only waste paper, and that his Worship had no power to adjourn. Mr Reid quoted a case of the Caversham Board suing for rates through Mr Stout, who bad no written authority, but during the argument one was made and held to be good by the Court. He further argued that his j appointment by Mr Roberts was sufficient, and tbat his learned friend had, by appearing, ! waived objection. Mr Taylor, in reply, said he did not plead, but at once took objection. He quoted Judges Bathgate and Grey upon that point in proof of his not having waived objection. His Worship stated that all cases postponed from that day would have to stand over until the 7th of June. Mr Reid replied that he had done his best in the matter, but the fact was that his clients seemed to think they knew more of the cafe than he did.