PROMISSORY NOTES.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 3 October 1924, Page 6

PROMISSORY NOTES.

POINT OF LAW ARGUED. MAGISTRATE’S RULING. ; A point of law on the wording, and its placing, on a promissory note was argued in the’ Eltham Magistrate’s Court before Air A. M. Mowlem, S.M. : Mary Gow (Mr A. A. Bennett), formerly of Eltham, hut now of Christchurch, widow, and executrix of the estate of George Davie Gow, formerly of Eltham,: a solicitor, was the plaintiff, and C. E. Robinson (Mr D. Clement), of Eltham, formerly a stock dealer but now a motor salesman-, was the defendant.

In her statement of claim, the plaintiff said that on May 31, 1920. the defendant, by his promissory note-, now overdue, promised to pay to the order of James Bridger, tlie sum of £lO5 six months after date. The note by endorsement of James Bridger and others was transferred to the plaintiff as executrix of her husband’s estate. Therefore the plaintiff sought to recover £lO6 16s 4d. The principal, and interest had amounted to £l3l 19s 4d, of which £25 3s had been paid, £2 5s as interest on Deceniber 15 and £22 18s on December 3, by cash from G. H. Mattock, endorser. The magistrate, to Air Clement: Are you defending this ? It is a promissory note. '

Mr Clement: It is an old noteover four years old. The Magistrate : What does that mat ter?

Mr Element: Well, it has. never been presented to its proper source. He quoted several authorities on the presentation of promissory notes. . ‘AIA Bennett said that the following words were printed on the bottom of the promissory note: “Payable, at the Bank of Australasia, Eltham.” They had agreed to argue the case that day. It was true the promissory note was not presented at the hank before the action but demand had been 1 made by letter. They had made the demand, but the promissory note was not presented. On June 18 of this year a demand had been made. The magistrate’s decision ivas asked on whether the words “Payable at the Bank of Australasia” were- in the body of the note. The question was'' whether the words were a memorandum or iff the body of the note. One. would undoubtedly say, at first sight, .that the words were in the body. He' quoted authorities to show what was meant by words in the body of a note, one authority holding that any writing in the margin or at the foot of the note was only a memorandum.

Mr Clement said that the question to be, defined was the body of the ‘note. The. words ‘‘Payable at” were printed and the space was left for the place of payment. When .anybody was suing on a, promissory note they should have carried out the Bills of Exchange Act, which was to present the note. Had the note been presentee) on the due date, the money would have been paid; Although Robinson was the maker of the note, Mattock was the endorser. The only answer to a claim on a nromissory note was an irregularity. He maintained that, as the words were in brackets, they were in the body of the note.

Tlie Magistrate: That’s a very slender defence. Surely you don’t wish the court to think the liability depends oil such a technicality as a bracket. The Magistrate said that he would follow the case of Stevenson v. Brown (1902 Times Law Reports). His was only a preliminary decision on a point of law. The decision quoted held that, written across the face, the words “payahel at the L. Bank, W. ’> were not in the bodv of the note. . Security for apneal was fixed at £ls 15s. ~ Further hearing ef the case was adjourned till next court day.—Argus.