Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

TARANAKI SESSION'S. . A r good clearance ‘of the actions remaining on. the civil list was made in the Supreme. Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when the sittings of the court were continued before Mr. Justice MacGregor. His Honor dismissed an appeal from the decision of Mr. A. M. Mow-' lem, S.M., 'at Eltham, in which the magistrate had given judgment for Mary Gow,> administratrix of the estate of George D. ,Gow, deceased, against O. E. Robinson, of Eltham, on a claim for £lO5 due on a promissory note, together with interest, which brought the total amount to £l3l 19s 4d. The note had been made by Robinson in favour of James Bridger,- and had been endorsed by G. H. Mattock, it was made on May 5, 1920, and was due on December ’3. 1920. The Bank of Australasia, Eltham-; was specified as the place of payment, and the argument yesterday was chiefly as to whether this was specified in the body of the note, and therefore made it essential that the note should be presented at the bank before action could be taken.

The magistrate held that the place at which the note was payable was not contained in the body of the note, but was a mere memorandum thereto, and therefore it did not come within the provisions of section 88 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1908. In consequence the note did not require to be presented ■ before an action could be' commenced. He further held that it was< proved that the drawer and the endorser had requested the holding over of presentation of the note; and finally that the evidence did not prove a novation, and that the case was one in which interest should be allowed. He therefore gave judgment for plaintiff . for, £lO6 16s 4d. and costs amounting, to £9 7s. The appeal was one of fact and law on the ground that there had been a novation, that the place at which the note was payable was in the body of the note and hot a memorandum thereto. Hs Honor said he saw no reason for upsetting the magistrate’s. decision, and dismissed the appeal with costs. OTHER MATTERS. Discharges in bankruptcy were granted George Francis Scott: labourer, of Hawera: Alfred Wright, farm manager, Arawhata; Thomas Andrew Bridge, farmer, Manaia; and Billy Ngeru, Hawera. The discharge of Henry William Lewis, builder, of ’ Auckland, formerly of; Hawera, was suspended for six months. .

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAWST19241219.2.3

Bibliographic details

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 19 December 1924, Page 2

Word Count
408

SUPREME COURT. Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 19 December 1924, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 19 December 1924, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert