PROMISSORY NOTE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18202, 22 September 1922, Page 4

PROMISSORY NOTE CASE.

PAYEE'S NAME INSERTED. ADDITION HELD INVALID.: An appeal from a decision of a magistrate as to the validity of a promissory note for £50 was allowed by the Chiel" Justice, Sir Robert -Stout, in a judgment delivered at the Supreme Court yesterday. The appellant was Cecilia L. Kunst (Mr. Ostler), widow, of Auckland, and the respondent, Cecil E. Abbott (Mr. S. McVeagh', of Auckland. Tlie l acts were that the "appellant gave a promissory note last' year to A. Hammond, of ifti'e legal firm of Hammond and Cracknel!, to pav to a firm with which she was doihu business. The promissory note was cashed by Hammond for £46 with the respondent, who stamped it and filled in his name as the payee. The magistrate held that Mrs. Kurst was i liable for the amount. I In giving judgment, His Honor said the highest Courts in the realm had not beets, I in accord in dealing with bills of ex change that had been altered without the authority.' of the maker or drawer. In the present case, the promissory note was given for a specific purpose, to pay a certain firm. Hammond had not auth oritv io give it to Abbott, nor to state a place for payment. After reviewing authorities and cases bearing on tfae issue His Honor held that the note was not given to Hammond to negotiate, end he had no authority to give it- to Abbott. On his part, the latter had no authority to complete the instrument by filling in his own name. The appeal was allowed, with costs in both upper and lower Courts.