LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8284, 17 June 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings. | Monday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] National Bank op New Zealand (Limited) v. L. M. (.track. —This was an action brought to recover the sum of £48 6s sd, interest on money lent. Mr. E. Hesketh appeared for the Bank, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. The case was a peculiar one, and unique in its way. The defendant, it appeared, had two accounts, one at Wellington, and another at Tauranga, both with the National Bank. He overdrew his account at Wellington, although ho was in credit at Tauranga, and the bank charged interest on the account overdrawn at Wellington. The defendant contended that the bank had no right to charge him interest on the overdraft account at Wellington while he was in credit at Tauranga. Mr. Hesketh in opening the case, said the questions between the parties had now been narrowed down to this one point of the right of the bank to charge interest under these circumstances. It would be unnecessary for him to read the whole of the pleadings, only the j second clause which referred to this j question of interest, and if the parties got the decision of the Court on this point there would be no difficulty in settling the account. The bank put in their claim for interest on two grounds : First, that when a customer chose to divide his account between two or more branches, he impliedly requested the bank to operate on them as separate accounts, and that impliedly he treated them as separate accounts, and the defendant could not complain if the bank did not take from the credit in one branch to meet a debit in tho other. And it did nob lie in him to say thfit he was not a banker, and did not know bank business, and had not received special notice of the custom of the bank, but having become a customer of the bank, he was bound by the usage and custom of the bank. Mr. Hesketh contended that branches of a bank may be different banks for certain purposes, and a bank may have branches in London, in Sydney, and in New Zealand, and a customer may have an account at each, bub surely he could not plead if he over- I drew his account in New Zealand, that he should nob be charged interest, but that it should bo charged against his English credit. He also pointed out that chequebooks were issued for branches of banks, not for the bank as a whole. He quoted a number of English authorities which went so far as to say that while the defendant could not complain if his cheque at Wellington was dishonored, although the bank had the undoubted power to blend tho two accounts in case of deficiency. Ho also quoted authorities to show that customers were bound by the customs of tho bank. He submitted, on those grounds, that the plaintiffs were entitled to charge interest. Mr. Cooper, while not disputing tho general law laid down by his friend, submitted that he had not touched on the question at issue. He contended that by the statement of claim tho bank sued on the balance duo on the blended accounts. The accounts at both branches were fluctuating accounts, and long before the action the bank blended the two accounts. The real question was not what amount was duo at Wellington, but what was the whole amount due to the bank. The right to interest, he said, depended partly on statute and partly on common law, In New Zealand it rested altogether on contract ; and where was the contract by which the defendant was entitled to pay interest on money which he did not owe ? His Honor asked Mr. Cooper if he contended that if he overdrew his account in Auckland, before they could charge interest, should the bank have to communicate with all the branches of the bank not only throughout the colonies but at home? Mr. Cooper contended that it was so, as tho bank should know the position of their customers under such circumstances. Custom, he said, did not bind the defendant in this case, and no contract had been shown. Ho quoted the case " Moore v. Voughton," in which it was held that the custom of a certain bank was not sustained because it had not been shown that the customer had notice of such custom. Mr. Cooper quoted other authorities in support of his argument, and further contended that the usages of bankers were the usages of trade and were not binding on those who were not acquainted with them, and he quoted authorities in support of this contention also. His Honor said he would take time to consider the question. The court then adjourned until ten o'clock on Wednesday morning. In Bankruptcy.

Close of Bankruptcies.—On the motion of Mr. Cave, who appeared for the Official Assignee, the following bankruptcies were declared closed, and the Official Assignee was relieved in regard to them : —William Stubbing Wilkinson, John Wilson, W. J. Suiter and Frederick Lewis Protheroe (trading as W. J. Suiter and Co.), Thomas Harris, Hyam Hart, and John Tobias (trading as Tobias and Hart), William Douglas Reid, and George Bishop. Proof ok Debt. — Mr. Campbell moved for admission of proof of debt of Lawrence Arthur Levy in the estate of Thomas Henry Webb. Mr. Campbell said the affidavit filed by Mr. Levy was before His Honor. His Honor said the reason given for not having lodged the proof of debt in proper . time was not satisfactory, but as the estate had not been distributed ho would grant the order. Bill of Costs.—Mr. Burton (for Mr. Thome) moved that the bill of costs of the solicitor for the petitioning creditor in the bankruptcy of James Miller may be considered, and the amount fixed. His Honor asked what had become of this bankruptcy. He had only the adjudication before him. Mr. Burton said it was still going on. His Honor thought the application premature. It was not usual to present these bills of costs until some further steps than the mere adjudication had been taken. Mr. Burton said the duties of the solicitor for the petitioning creditor were ended. His Honor asked if the petition had been opposed, and Mr. Burton replied that it had not. His Honor said he saw £5 5s charged for attending in support of the petition and that was excessive, and was certainly not costs out of pocket. He thought £'10 10s and Court fees would meet the justice of the case and he would allow that. Public Examinations.ln the bankruptcy of Thomas Slater, Mr. Cotter moved that the 30th of June be fixed as the day for the public examination of the bankrupt. The application was made under section 149 of the Act, and His Honor fixed the date named. Adjudication. — Be Robert and Alexander Donaldson (debtors) Mr. Burton moved on summons that the debtors be adjudicated bankrupts. His Honor said he could nob take it to-day, as the order was that the case should stand over until after the Supreme Court, and he had a long case to hoar yet. He could only take it by consent. Mr. Burton said he was sorry for that, as he had all his witnesses present. Mr. Campbell, who appeared for the debtors, was present. Mr..Campbell, however, did not consent, and the case had to stand over.

Another Case.— Mr. Campbell moved on summons bo Albert Edward Lake (a debtor), to show cause why he should nob be adjudicated a bankrupt. The debtor did nob appear, and an affidavit of service of the summons was filed. The acts of bankruptcy were that the debtor had left the colony, and the summons was served at his lastknown place of abode, on the 11th of June. The petitioning creditors were Sargood, Son, and Ewen, and all the essentials required by the Act were alleged in the petition, which showed that the debtor was indebted to the petitioning creditors in the sum of £205 Is lid. There was also an affidavit by the debtor's wife relative to his absence. The order of adjudication was granted. Tobias and Hart.— Proof of Debt.— Mr. Cotter appeared for the City Council to be permitted to lodge proof of debt. The debtors, before filing, had given promissory notes, and the Council did nob think they were entitled to prove until the lasb of these became due, bub the debt was admitted in the statement of assets and liabilities, and the Official Assignee had reserved funds from the estate to pay the dividend. The order was made. Orders of Discharge.—Mr. H. Campbell, for Mr. C. F. Buddie, applied that an order of discharge be granted to William Robert Browne. It appeared that the Official Assignee had nob received notice of the application, and had not sent in a report. I Xhe appjiGfttion was allowed to ebaud over

| till next Bankruptcy sittings. Mr. Beafe i made a- similar application for Martin John ! Nelson, a bankrupt. The debtor was not ■ present, as he lived upwards of 100 miles away. There was no opposition, and the order was granted. Mr. Beale also applied for an order of discharge for William Robins Lawry. This debtor also lived at a distance of over 100 miles from Auckland, and was nob present. There was no opposition, and the order of discharge was granted. Annulling Bankruptcy.—ln the bankruptcy of George Fraser, jun., and William Fraser (trading as George Fraser and Sons), Mr. A. E. Whitaker moved the Court to annul the bankruptcy. There was an affidavit by the Official Assignee, showing that the whole affair had been settled, and the composition paid. The order was granted. POLICE COURT.—Monday. [Before Messrs. Moody and Robertson, J.P.'s.] Drunkenness.—One person was punished for a first offence. George Stephens and Harriet Dawson were each fined £3, and ordered to be imprisoned, in default, for seven days with bard labour. Injury to Property.—James Boyd was charged with having been drunk, and also with having broken three panes of glass valued at £2 ss, in the window of a shop in Chapel-street, and writing desk, valued at ss, belonging to Jas. Paul. He pleaded guilty. Sergeant-Major Pratt said that the prisoner went into the shop, and was supplied with some toys which he asked for ; but he refused to pay for them. Ho would not leave, and was, therefore, pub out of the shop, when he struggled violently, breaking the writing-desk, and when outside he smashed the panes of glass. The Bench fined the prisoner £1 for having been drunk, with an alternative of fortyeight hours' imprisonment with hard labour ; and for having broken the glass he was fined Is and costs, and ordered to pay for the damage, or be imprisoned for one month with hard labour. Vagrancy.—Elizabeth Dougherty pleaded guilty of having insufficient lawful means of support, and of having previously been convicted as an idle and disorderly person. She said that if she were discharged she would leave Auckland. The Bench sentenced her to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.