A CURIOUS CIVIL ACTION.

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 72, 22 September 1898, Page 6

A CURIOUS CIVIL ACTION.

A civil action of a peculiar nature — so far as the surrounding circumstances were concerned — came before Mr. Eyre Kcnnj', S.M., to-day, when W. F. Sinclair sued George Massoy- Watson to recover £180, the claim being based on two promissory notes dated 7th April, for equal amounts, one falling due ia two months, and the other in three months. Sir Kenneth Douglas appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Campbell for defendant. The promissory notes were given, it was alleged, for money lent, value received, and accounts paid for defendant by plaintiff, with whom defendant had been living, and by whom he was being looked after. Plaintiff said defendant was quite capable of transacting his own business, and had not been under the influence of liquor for some time before he gave the notes. Mr. Izard was one of three other witnesses called in support of the claim. He had been acting as defendant's legal adviser, and was quite positive that on the day when defendant signed the notes he was perfectly well aware of what he was doing. Dr. Collins, called bj' the defence, said he attended defendant, who was suffering from drunkenness and continual soakiugJJ of liquor, which had apparently been going on for some 3*ears. Sinclair had looked after Watson well. Witness did not think defendant was fib to transact business, though for two or three days before he had not taken any quantity of liquor. He could easily have written a good signature. In cross-examination the doctor said defendant might have given promissory notes and have forgotten all about them. In his evidence, taken at Auckland, the defendant said he had no recollection of having seen the promissory notes, the subject of the action, or of having signed them. About the date when the promissory notes purported to have been signed he was in a continual state of intoxication. He was certainly not able at that time to use any rational judgment about business transactions. He had no knowledge of what the promissory notes were given for. He admitted certain items in an account between himself and Sinclair amounting to £G0 19s, but he had no recollection of the remainder, though he would not go so far as to say they were incorrect. "I simply say I know nothing about them," he said, referring to the promissory notes and the items. " I admit there is something owing 1o Mr. Sinclair, but I don't know what amount." During the cross-examination of the plaintiff, which, by consent, had been deferred till this afternoon, Mr. Campbell intimated that there would be two grounds for defence — (1) Intoxication, and (2) inadequacy of consideration. Witness denied that the amount owing to him was £130 and not £180; £110 was the amount of hard cash which he was actually out of pocket. He had been willing to compromise to the extent of accepting £110. Mr. Campbell — That amount we admit is due. Would 3 r ou be willing to accept that now ? Sir Kenneth Douglas — But will we actually get the money ? The Magistrate— l don't suppose you would get any guarantee — not even if you got judgment for the full amount. After consultation with his client, Sir Kenneth Douglas intimated that he was prepared to accept judgment for £110 with all costs, and judgment for that amount was accordingly entered, the costs totalling £]_3 12s. The Magistrate remarked that the agreement seemed proper and equitable. As to the defence re drunkenness, he donbted vevy much if it would have held good.