A BILL TRANSACTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7562, 29 May 1885, Page 5

A BILL TRANSACTION.

[Peb Pkess Association.] INVEECAEGILL, Mat 28. At the District Court to-day Judge Ward gave judgment in Hamilton v. Eeade, in which, owing to the peculiar features the case presented. His Honor, decided to reserve judgment until this Court sittings. The claim was for .£l7l, amount of verdict given in the case of Hamilton v. Organ and Co, The money recovered was paid to Eeade as t solicitor for plaintiff, and by him handed to M'Ardell, manager of the Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, on consideration that M'Ardell would accept a bill of £2OB due by plaintiff to the National Mortgage Company'. Hamilton asserted that the money was handed by Eeade to M'Ardell without his consent, and sued to recover the amount. His Honor gave judgment for defendant without costs. Mr Matthews stated that since hearing the case at the last sitting, M'ArdelTs bill had matured and defendant had issued a writ upon it in the Supreme Court. He had issued a writ for the full £2OB, and judgment was obtained against him. Eeade said he had taken proceedings to protect himself in the event of the present action going against him. He did not intend to proceed further on the bill. His Honor said Eeade had already proceeded on the bill. He had sworn in .the witness-box that he had paid the money over to M'Ardell to release the bill, and yet had issued a writ and obtained judgment for the amount it represented. Had the Court known of the circumstances, judgment would have been against defendant. Unfortunately, judgment could not now be reversed. Mr Finn said it was a matter which could be considered by the Law Society. Eeade gave his assurance that he had not the slightest intention of proceeding further with his action. His Honor, said Eeade had no right to proceed on the bill. Not only should the matter be considered by the Law Society, but it should also be brought before a Judge of the Supreme Court. Eeade: I am quite willing, your Honor, that my’conduct should be investigated by a Judge of the Supreme Court. His Honor: It probably will be, Mr Eeade. It is fortunate for you ; that judgment was givenbefore I knew this, or it would have been against you. Mr Matthews could consider whether he would appeal. The evidence taken at the hearing, plus the defendant’s admission that he had taken action on the bill, would justify a verdict for the plaintiff.