COURT OF REQUESTS, NELSON. WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 1.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 149, 11 January 1845, Page 179

COURT OF REQUESTS, NELSON. WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 1.

[Before C. B. Brewer, Esq., Commissioner,]

SAUNDERS V. M ( DONALO. The plaintiff claimed the sum of five shilling!, part of a sum of £28 deposited by him in the Union Bank of Australia.

The plaintiff said that about a month or two after he deposited the £28 in the bank, he requested the accountant to transfer it to the account of Messrs. Beit and Sons. The sum of £27 15s. only had been transferred to their account.

The defendant said the plaintiff had not fairly stated the whole of the case. Al the time lie requested to have the sum of £28 transferred to Messrs. Beit and Sons' account, a bill for £58 drawn and payable by him in favour of those gentlemen was lying five days overdue. The plaintiff tendered the £28 as part payment of this bill, and was informed that there were five shillings expenses on it, in consequence of the bank having given notice in writing to the drawer and acceptor of its dishonour, it being usual for the bank to give such notice in case of the dishonour of any bill left with them for collection, for which notice (there being no charge made for collection) it was customary for them to charge five shillings. This custom had been adopted by the branch of the Union Bank here to insure punctuality in the discharge of obligations of this nature. The plaintiff refused to pay the five shillings, having, he said, been informed by Mr. Beit that it was an iraposition; and finally he desired the £28 less the five shillings to be placed to Messrs. Beit and Sons' account.

The accountant and clerks of the bank proved that in cases where bills left with the bank for collection were dishonoured, it was usual to write to all the parties concerned, and to charge 9s. for such advices. That, at the time alluded to by the plaintiff, a bill of £58, payable by hitn to Messrs. Beit and Sons, was lying dishonoured at the bank, and that the usual advices had been given ; that the plaintiff was informed of the charge on the bill, and refused to pay it ; and finally, after some altercation, desired the accountant to pay the sum short of the ss. to the credit of Messrs. Beit and Sons.

By the Court: The plaintiff did not at ifot time demand the balance of five shillings, nor has he. at any time since been to the bank to demand it.

John N. Beit, for the plaintiff, proved tl&t he left the bill for collection at the bank ; tliat the day after its dishonour he sent for it, but that it was refused to him until he paid ss. expenses incurred in advising parties of its disdishonour. [Here the witness began to argue the law of the case, quoting Lord Tenterden and others.] Commissioner : Confine yourself to giving evidence. I cannot allow you to argue the matter. John N. Beit: This charge is a fraudulent one. Commissioner : If you continue to disobey the Court, I will commit you for a contempt of it. The witness was silent. Commissioner: It is not necessary for the Court to give any opinion as to the legality of the charge made by the bank. The case is dismissed, on the ground that it appears from (the evidence that no demand has been made by the plaintiff of the ss. the subject matter of this action, and where there is no demand there can be no refusal.