TRANSACTION IN CHEQUES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 21, 26 January 1909, Page 5

TRANSACTION IN CHEQUES.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT JUDGMENT. A transaction in cheques was the subject of a reserved judgment given in the Magistrate's Court by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., this morning in the case of Geo. Cudby v. the executrix in the estate of A. Young, deceased. The plaintiff claimed from the defendant the sum of £20 10s, being the amount of a cheque drawn by the defendant on the Bank of New Zealand at Lower Hutt, payable to the plaintiff or bearer, and dishonoured on presentment. He also claimed the further sum of £5 15s 5d for interest at the rate of 8 per centum per annum down to the date of judgment. The plaintiff also claimed the further sum of £5, being the amount of cash advanced, together with interest at the rate of 8 per centum per annum down to date of bearing. The total claim was £32 0s 6d. "The cheque for £20 175," said the Magistrate, "bears date 20th June, 1905, and the cheque of plaintiff for £5 bears date 22nd January, 1906. The defendant's cheque is over three and a-half years' old, and the plaintiff is not certain whether he ever presented it. The executrix knew nothing of the cheque until she received a letter from the plaintiff's solicitor. Cheques must be presented within a reasonable time after issue, in order to render the drawer liable, regard being had in determining what is a reasonable time to the usage of trade and bankers, and the facts oi the particular case. The drawer of a cheque is not discharged by the holder's failure to present it in due time, unlee.s the drawer has sustained from the delay actual prejudice. In the present case the drawer has died, and his wife, the executrix, knew nothing of tins cheque till some time after her husband's death. By delay the holder takes thti risk of the bank's failure, or revocation of their authority to pay by the death of the drawer or countermand of payment. This disposes of that part of the claim for £20 10s, cheque and interest £5 15s sd. "As to the loait said to be advanced in January, 1906, considering the nature of the transaction a loan for racing purposes — the long time that has elapsed; and the subsequent death of the loanee, I do not think that the plaintiff can claim on the executrix. The production of the cheque does not show that it was a loan. Plaintiff may suffer by reason of his patience, but, considering the loan was admittedly for speculative purposes at the races, I do uot think I would be right in giving judgment against the executrix, who, in my opinion, rightly resists the claim; Judgment will be for the defendant, with costs £2 25."