LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6067, 28 April 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings, Wednesday, April 27.

[Before Mr. Justice Richmond and a Special Jury.] The Court, adjourned from Monday, resumed at 10 o'clock.

The National Bank of New Zealand v. Bedell and Field.—Mr. E. Hesketh and Mr. S. Hesketh for the plaintiffs ; Mr. MacCormick for the first-named defendant. This case was part heard at the last sitting, and the particulars of the action were set out in the ordinary report of the proceedings. Several witnesses were examined, who stated that they were creditors of Suitor, but the bank had given them to understand that the respective cliims made would be paid.—His Honor said the real question was, whether these several witnesses relinquished their liabilities against Suitor's estate, and whether the defendants took over these liabilities upon a certain agreement made with the bank. He should ask the jury for a finding upon that question by referring to their decision on another issue. Theagreementsooften referred to did not appear to be in writing. But the bank agreed to take over the brewery, and the question suggested whether another difficulty might arise on the ground of this being an interest in land, any agreement affectini; it must be in writing. After the jury shall have decided these two points, there will be very little to consider.—Mr. MacCortnick, in opening the defendant's case to the jury, said that Field had disappeared from the action. In fact he had absconded. There was only the defendant Bedell io face the consequence of some of Field's acts. Bedell indeed had reposed too much confidence in Field, who had embezzled moneys of the partnership, and was guilty of fraud. The question that arose was whether Field had exceeded the authority he had as a partner to bind the partnership estate to these liabilities. It would be shown by the evidence in support of the defendant's case that the case was entirely different from that made out by the plaintiff.—Mr. Alfred Heather was the first witness examined for the defence. He said that he agreed with Bedell and Field for a cash credit bond, hearing that Bedell and Field were about to purchase Suitor's brewery and premises. Witness held certain documents. The bond was to be nominally for £2000, but this included £1300 or £1400 already due to the bank, and £600 due to the Bank of New South Wales. The mortgage was to be given to witness, but he afterwards learned that the mortgage was given to the bank. Witness said it would make no great difference if the bank realised before they came upon witness for payment. The bank had made demand of payment of the bond. Witness had never heard that Suitor's liabilities were taken over by Bedell and Field. Field was the active man of business connected with these transactions.—Henry Bedell said he was defendant in the present action, and remembered the negotiation with the bank for the advance of £2000. Drew a cheque for Suitor's liabilities (£llOO odd) to operate upon the cash credit. The witness was examined at considerable length upon the items in the list of Suitor's liabilities. Several cheques were handed to the witness, but he knew nothing about some of them. Samuel Stuart, accountant for Mr. Bedell, said that he was employed for Bedell since August last. Was before in the employment o£ Suitor. The books of Bedell and Field were in a great mess when witness took them. Field used to superintend the brewery, open letters, and make all business arrangements. Witness found a great many false entries in the books as to money received and paid. Witness was convinced that Field had been guilty of great dishonesty to bis partner. — Plaintiff's counsel agreed to abandon the first count in the declaration, and to withdraw the first two issues.—Mr. MacCormick addressed the jury for the defence. He contended that the bank could not recover the amounts paid for the contingent liabilities of Suitor under the second count: that Bedell was not bound by the actions of Field after a certain date : and not at all beyond the scope of Field's authority as a partner.—Mr. Hesketh summed up the whole case. He contended that Field was put forward by the partnership as its business man. The bank did not know Mr. Field, except in his capacity of partner of the firm of Bedell and Field. Bedell and Field had proved against the estates of certain customers who had failed; they did everything which would induce people to think that they were partners. He contended that the agreement witli the bank was within the scope of Field's authority. It would be opposed to all justice to allow the bank to suffer for the wrong done to Bedell by his co-partner. —His Honor thought the agreement was not outside the scope of Field's authority, and directed the jury on the several items of account, and the claim for interest.—The jury retired at 7 o'clock to consider their verdict. The jury returned a verdict for £2001 and £647, plus £52, with interest, less £2200 paid. The Court adjourned at 8.35 to 10 o'clock Thursday morning.