LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1616, 6 December 1912, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) BANK'S LIEN. CASE RE A PROMISSORY NOTE. THREE-CORNERED- PROBLEM. Judgment was delivered by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., yesterday in the case in which the National Bank of New Zealand claimed, in respect of a promissory note, the sum of .£lB 12s. 6d. from James Russell, grocer, Wellington. The promissory note had been given to Clarke, Staples, and Co., merchants, Wellington, for goods sold by that firm to Russell. . Clarke, Staples, and Co. lodged the note at the National Bank for collection. Afterwards, before the date for payment arrived, Russell paid the amount of the note to Clarke, Staples, and Co., and the latter then undertook to withdraw the note from the.bank. They applied to the bank to re-deliver the note to them accordingly, but the bank claimed a lien on it to secure tho liability of Clarke, Staples, and Co., and when the note matured claimed, tho amount from Russell. Russell claimed that the payment made to Clarke, Staples, and Co. discharged his liability on the note, and he resisted further payment. Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, who appeared for the plaintiff, contended that the bank, having a lien, was the holder' for value, and was entitled to recover from Russell, despite the payment made to Clarke, Staples, and Co. ' , For tho defendant, Mr. T. Neafe argued that as Clarke, Staples, and Co. had only lodged the note for collection, and before the due date had countermanded the instructions re collection, and paid part 01 the proceeds received from Russell into the bank, and made other lodgments exceeding the amount of the note, the bank must be' held to have appropriated the amounts so paid in towards satisfaction of the note. . ' , _ . "Is is stated in Halsbury s Laws ot England," said his Worship,' in the course of judgment, "that a banker has a lien on a bill handed to him by a customer for collection if the customer bo or become indebted to him. I do not think there can be any doubt about plamtiit s lien on defendant's promissory note at tho time Clarke renuested.it to bo.retnrned to him. Clarke was then indebted to the bank, and they were within their rights in asking for the amount due under it to bo paid into Clarke, Staples, and Co.'s account before' handing it over. "Clarke . . . paid in the amount received from defendant and arranged to satisfy the balance due on tho note. I think tho evidence shows that' Clarke then notified the bank that he wanted tho lien on his particular security discharged and that certain lodgments made by him were to be appropriated for this purpose. Subsequently, Clarke paid sufficient moneys into his account to clear the lien, and I think the bank should have appropriated the payments made by Clarke as dirscted by him, and are now stopped from making this claim. "Other ' matters to be considered between the parties are that Clarke, Staples and Co.'s indebtedness to the bank on current account was settled before defendant's promissory note became duo, and the company's later debt is guaranteed. Defendant' has already paid the amount of tho note to the original holder, and plaintiff had knowledge of this before the promissory note became due. Plaintiff has, also, had the benefit of the aetual cash' paid by defendant to Clarke'. The equities are on defendant's side, and as' tho amount 1 is under £20 I propose to give judgment in equity and good conscience for defendant." Mr. Neuve: I ask for,costs, your Wor 7 ship. ftis Worship: I don't think I will, allow ;«tnjrqdosts>r,ii Jni (jiving Judgment in this ' Way away'from plaintiff any right of appeal he may have had. DUTIABLE .TROUSERS. James Eaglesham,. a greaser : on the steamer Maung'anui,' was proceeded against by E. A. Brabazonj Collector of Customs, on a charge of his having failed to deolare three pairs of trousers for duty, and Peter Reynolds, another sailor, was charged -with having been concerned in the unshipping of the goods. ■ It was stated that Reynolds had recently got the trousers at Newcastle, but had left them with eomo friends in Sydney,, having forgotten to bring them on to New Zealand. At Reynolds's. request Eagle-: sham had obtained the trousers at Sydney and on arrival in Wellington had omitted to declare them for duty. Defendants said that they had committed the breach of the regulations in ignorance. His Worship imposed a fine of .£1 and ordered the trousers to be forfeited. • He , added that if representations were made to tho Minister for Customs the goods would, probably, bo returned. . BUILDER AND FISHERMAN. (Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) George Odlin, builder, Brooklyn, sued Alexander M'Kenzie, fisherman, Paremata, for .£7 7s. 7d. for certain goods supplied. The goods included an 800gallon tank. The defendant paid, £5 15s. 7d. into Court, but disputed am item of M 10s. for tho tank. . Judgment was for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, and plaintiff was ordered to pay defendant's costs. Mr. J. C. Peacock appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath. for the defendant. .. WHARF WORKER'S HOME. Alex. Sample applied for possession of a tenement, in Bidwill Street, occupied by John Mftstorton,' wharf labourer. ■ The application was granted, and plaintiff was, also, riven' judgment on a claim of .£9 7s. for rent. ' UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following, cases, judgment was ontered for the plaintiffs by default :— Tho London 'Times" v. G. G. Farland, ■£2 15s. Gd„ costs 125.; H. C. Gibbons and C 0.,. Ltd., v. James Adams, lvs. id. and 9a.; same v. E. Greenwood, £2 2s. 6d. and ■,103.i W. H. TisdaU, Ltd., v. A. K. Boyd, £1 Is. sd. and 75.; H. G. Mayer v. Norman Frank and .Co., £3 17s. 6d. and Ills.; John Norton v. W. E. Isherwood, £i 3s. and"los.; Magnus Sanderson and Co., Ltd., v. Jame3 Shackelfcon and Son, £h 17s. 6d. and Bs.; same v. William Sheridan, £U Is. 7d. and 155.; same v. Neils P. Nielsen, .£2 Is. lOd. and 135.; P. Hayman and Co. v. Norman Frank and Co., .£l6 ia. Id. and .£1 10s. 6d.; Inglis Bros. v. G-corge Fernandos, .£2 2s. i&. and lis.; and Edward Collie v. Edgar H. Claridge, .£6 15s. and .£1 3s. 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. James Whelam was ordered to pay Rains and Churchill £i 10s. at the rate of ss. per month. POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Jessie Hay, who was convicted of having importuned in Ghuznee Street, was sent to tho Salvation Army Home for six mouths. For insobriety, Thomas Barry was fined 10s., Harry Spencer was sent to Roto Roa for one year, and John Quinn was fined 10s. John Howard was fined 10s. for insobriety, and £3 for having used certain language in public. Michael Scullion was fined £2 for having stolen 181b. of zinc from . Stephen Thomas. John Quinn and John Mooro were each fined £1 for having broken the peace of Victoria Street by using threatening behaviour.