PROMISSORY NOTE CASE.
SEQUEL TO LEGAL FAILURE.
APPEAL FROM LOWER COURT.
An appeal from a decision of a magistrate relating to the validity or otherwise of a promissory note for £50 was heard by the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, at the Supremo Court on Saturday. Tho appellant was Cecilia L. Kunst (Mr. Ostler), of Auckland, widow, and the respondent Cecil E. Abbott (Mr. R. McVeagh), of Auckland. The facts were that the. appellant gave a promissory note last year to A. Hammond, of tho firm of Hammond and Cracknell, solicitors, to pay to a firm with 'which she was doing business. The promissory note was cashed by Hammond for £48 with the respondent, who stamped it and filled in his name as tho payee. In tho lower Court the respondent admitted having proved as a creditor for the £50 in Hamniond't, estate. The before the magistrate was that Mrs. Kunst had a considerable sum of money in the. hands of Hammond and Cracknell for investment, and Hammond had induced her to give the promissory note, saying he would fix th.> matter up with the firm in question. The magistrate held that Mrs. Kunst was liable to Abbott for the amount. After hearing legal argument by counsel His Honor reserved decision.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19220918.2.25.1
Bibliographic details
New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18198, 18 September 1922, Page 5
Word Count
211PROMISSORY NOTE CASE. New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18198, 18 September 1922, Page 5
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the New Zealand Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries and NZME.
Log in