PROMISSORY NOTES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 80, 16 March 1933, Page 4

PROMISSORY NOTES

•———> I - 1 ■ I. — ALLEGEDLY DISHONOURED. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM SUCCEEDS. Christchurch, Mar. 15. Reserved judgment in the case Cooper and Pryce, Ltd. v. Royds Bros, and Kirk, heard on Monday, was delivered by Mr Justice Blair to-day in favour of the plaintiff for the full amount, less £4OO paid in instalments. Plaintiff was also allowed interest on the amount claimed at the legal rate and costs. The judge said that some of the evidence for the defence was unsatisfactory The judge said that Yates was the defendant’s agent where the last three bills were concerned, and the liability of the defendant was clear. In regard to the first bill, he was satisfied that the conference between Boyds and Yates did take place, despite the evidence of Royds, who was not a satisfactory witness. At the time there must have been a continuous need for conferences, and the dishonouring of the bill must have been a matter of grave importance to Boyds’ firm. The judge added: "Further, I am not content to accept the statement of Royds that all ho gave plaintiffs was ‘the piovs hope’ of ultimate payment. I am sure that an actual promise to pay was made.” A civi! action involving £2649 came before tho Supreme Court in Christchurch before Mr Justice Blair on Monday, when Cooper and Pryce, Ltd., motor body builders, of Christchurch, claimed from Royds Bros, and Ltd., merchants, of Christchurch the sum of £2649. The statement of claim stated that the plaintiff was the holder and payee of four promissory notes for £825, £B5O, £436 and £538 made by Royds Motors, Ltd. The notes were presented for payment and dishonoured. The plaintiff also claimed interest at 8 per eent. and the costs of the action. The defence was a general denial. It was also contended that if the promissory notes were in fact a’.skonoured, which was denied, no notice of the tact was given to the defendants.