DISHONOURED PROMISSORY NOTES

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7105, 14 March 1933, Page 7

DISHONOURED PROMISSORY NOTES

Claim for $2649

JUDGE’S STRONG COMMENT ON EVIDENCE

Per Press Association

CHRISTCHURCH, Last Night

A civil action involving £2649 came up in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Blair to-day, when Cooper and Pryce, Ltd., motor-body builders, of Christchurch, claimed from Royds Bros, and Kirk, Ltd., merchants, of Christchurch, tho sum of £2649. Tho statement of claim, stated that tho plaintiff was the holder and payee of four promissory notes for ~825, £BSO, £436 and £538 made by Itoyds Motors, Ltd. The notes were presented for payment and dishonoured. The plaintiff also claimed interest at Sper cent, and tho costs of the action. The defenco was a general denial. It was also contended that if the promissory notes wore in fact dishonoured, which was denied, no notice of the fact was given to the defendants. Mr. Donnelly, for the plaintiffs, said that the moneys claimed were concerned in dealings between the plaintiff company and Royds Motors, Ltd., which Arm had paid the plaintiffs in bills. Tho bank had required an additional endorsement and the bills had been endorsed by Eovds Bros, and Kirk, the defendant company. After evidenco had been given for the plaintiffs, Mr. Weston, for the defence, said that the defendant admitted that tho bills were dishonoured. He asked leave to add to the statement of defence that the bills were endorsed by tho defendant company solelv so that Cooper and Pryce would discount the bills at tho bank. The arrangements were all between Cooper and Pryce and Mr. Yates, of Royds Motors. Yates was not constituted the agent of Royds Bros, and Kirk. With regard to the receiving of notice of tho dishonouring of the bills, it was earnestly hoepd that all obligations could bo discharged, but no promise had been, given definitely. t. j, Boyds, in evidence, said his endorsement of the bills was given for the pm-pose of enabling them to be discounted. When that purpose failed his signature was valueless. _ Commenting on the facts, his Honour said he was satisfied that tho account given by the witness Pryce for plaintiff was substantially accurate. His Honour said he was by nomeans satisfied with the evidence of Royds. There had been a distinct economy of frankness on his part, and on two occasions Royds went out of his way to colour his facts-in order words to throw dust in the eyes of the Court. Judgment was reserved.