PAYMENT WANTED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20425, 29 November 1929, Page 16

PAYMENT WANTED.

PROMISSORY NOTE CASE.

DEAL MADE IN SYDNEY.

LARCE AMOUNT INVOLVED.

■A Sydney accountant and a resident of 'Auckland were (lie principal parties in a dispute over a promissory note aigued ■liefore Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff was Edward Joseph Flood, of Sydney, accountant (Mr. Rogerson), who claimed fiom James Ernest (tear, of One 1 ree Hill (Mr. Parry, of Wellington), £775. alleged to he due on a promissory note. I his note, which plaintiff claimed to be the holder of, was dated January 20, 1923. It was alleged that, the defendant Gear undertook in the note to pay John McLaughlin and Son. of Sydney, solicitors, £775 on May 23, 1923; that McLaughlin and Son endorsed the note to V. A. Wnwii, and ' that V. A. Wawn endorsed it. to the plaintiff. It was alleged that the note was subsequently dishonoured and was still

unpaid. The defence was a denial of making the note, or in the alternative it was alleged that it. was obtained by McLaughlin by duress or undue influence while 'McLaughlin was acting as defendant's solicitor. 'Defendant made the charge that while ho was in Sydney in 1923 lie became intimate with John McLaughlin and reposed confidence in him. McLaughlin had '.represented to him (hat a Wellington solicitor was mishandling defendant's affairs and was conspiring (o deprive defendant of control of his business.

A Trip Arranged. Defendant believed these representations, and it was arranged that he and McLaughlin should come to New Zealand and take defendant's affairs out of the hands of this Wellington solicitor. At 'the last moment McLaughlin said ho could not leave Australia as he was temporarily financially embarrassed, and de- - fendant gave him two promissory notes on the specific understanding that, they should not be negotiated or dealt with. He alleged that plaintiff knew one of the notes to be overdue or dishonoured and that he had not. taken the note in good faith nor given value fqr it, Mr. Rogerson said that if he could estab- ' lish that, the plaintiff was a holder in due course within the meaning of thu Bills of Exchange Act any defect in title as affecting the position between McLaughlin 'and Gear did not enter info thu matter. Flood claimed to be the in due course and gave value for the note and knew of no defect in title. H«i, in fact, gave £lO5 for it.

" Counsel said not a tittle of evidence had been adduced during a hearing in Sydney to disprove that plaintiff was a perfectly innocept holder in due course. The whole tenor of plaintiff's evidence pointed to-his being an honest roan. Defendant would have to prove that a clever Ewindle had been concocted by Flood and four others, who must have been guilty of gross perjury. Mr. Rogerson quoted largely from', and .commented on, evidence in the case taken on commission in Sydney. "Nothing will convince me that Mr. McLaughlin's business methods could not have been improved," commented His Honor at one stage. i"I would not attempt to do so," said Mr. Rogerson. "Fortunately no such burden is thrust upon me." Main Line of Defence.

Outlining the main line of thci defence. , Mr. Parry said the defendant Gear a few years ago had a very large estate in Zealand and went through a large amount of it while he was living in Sydney. The Wellington lawyer who was his trustee ' was helping liiin on a very short allowance and it was in order to get his estate out of his trustee's hands that Gear planned to return to Wellington with McLaughlin, whom he then trusted as his friend and legal adviser. AH the surrounding circumstances of the case contradicted the evidence of Flood. McLaughlin gave no evidence for either side in-Sydney, because it was understood he was coming to New Zealand to give evidence. If necessary he would ask for an'adjourni'ment to enable McLaughlin's evidence to be taken, because McLaughlin had made admissions that would "blow out" the plaintiff's case entirely. - "I must say it looks very much like a manoeuvre," said His Honor, commenting on the absence of McLaughlin's evidence. The case was adjourned until this morning, the question of applying for dn adjournment to be considered in itlio meantime.