DISHONOURED CHEQUE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 95, 23 April 1931, Page 16

DISHONOURED CHEQUE

ENDORSER SUED

A dishonoured cheque signed by H. G. Thirkell and endorsed mtn the name A. M. Thirkell (his wife) was the subject of litigation at the Magistrate's Court on Tuesday afternoon, when Harcourt and Co. sought to recover £163 from Hector George Thirkell and his, wife in her separate estate. .The amount claimed was that of a cheque drawn by Thirkell on the Union Bank of. Australia in favour of Harcourt and Company or bearer. Interest amounting to £2 10s 9d was also asked fpr. _. ' Counsel for Mrs. Thirkell, Mr. P. B. Fitzherbert, said that his client, who was separated from her husband, stated that she was in entire ignorance of the negotiations between her husband ■ and Harcourt and Co., and was at a loss to understand why the debt should be thrust upon her. If the case went against ' her she would lose every penny she possessed. Mr. J. Hanna, who represented Harcourt and Co., Ltd.> said that the case was against Mrs. Thirkell as the endorser of the cheque drawn by her husband. In October last Harcourts obtained judgment against Thirkell. Charles Jameß Stanton Harcourt, a member of the firm of Harcourt and Company, produced the cheque, which he said had been given in return for one written by the plaintiff company. A term of the negotiation was that the cheque signed by Thirkell should 'be endorsed by his wife. Thirkell's cheque was due on 20th August, and was presented for payment, but the bank.gave notification that there were no funds to meet it. Witness posted notices to both Mr. and Mrs Thirkell informing them that the cheque had been dishonoured, but the money was still owing The reason for Harcourts cheque being given to Thirkell was that, he had intimated that he could not proceed with the erection of flats in Hawker street owned by his wife unless he paid an account to the Western Tile Company. Cross-examined by Mr. Fitzherbert, Mr. Harcourt said that he was aware that Mr. Thirkell was a bankrupt. Witness had not seen that Mrs. Thirkell had had independent advice before she had signed the cheque. Mr. Fitzherbert then applied tor a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the signature on the cheque was that of Mrs. Thirkell. The Magistrate, however, refused to take this action. Counsel added that if the cheque had been signed by Mrs. Thirkell, she had signed it under the influence of her husIn evidence, Mrs. Thirkell said that the signature on the back of the cheque was hers, but she had no recollection of signing it. She was separated from her husband in March lasf;, and the first she knew of the cheque was when her solicitor1 asked her whether she knew that there was a judgment against her. The judgment was subsequently set aside. Witness said that she had advanced her husband sums of money at various times, amounting to. £1400 or £1500, of which only about £400 had been paid back. She had complete confidence in her husband, and always did what he asked her to do until she found that he was unfaithful to her. Mr. Fitzherbert submitted that there was no evidence to prove that Mrs. Thirkell1 hnd known the nature of the transaction when she signed the cheque. It-was contended by Mr. Hanna that the rules of undue influence could not apply to husband and wife. The onus lay on Mrs. Thirkell to prove undue influence. The Magistrate reserved his decision.