ACCOUNTANT SUED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21807, 23 May 1934, Page 14

ACCOUNTANT SUED

QUESTION OF LIABILITY PROMISSORY NOTE DISPUTE PLAINTIFF FIRM NONSUITED The non-payment of a promissory note for £219 issued by J. T. Julian and Son, Limited, builders, in favour of W. Wilson, Limited, engineers, led to proceedings being taken in the Supreme Court yesterday by W. Wilson, Limited, against Charles Harold Emery, accountant, whoso signature was on the promissory note. It was alleged by plaintiff company that defendant signed the noto as guarantor, hut this was denied by defendant, who maintained 110 merely countersigned tho noto without accepting liability. Tho caso was heard before Mr. Justieo Ostler. Mr. Dyson represented plaintiff company and Mr. Barrowclough defendant. Albert AVilson a director of plaintiff company, gave evidence that last October ho saw tho accountant of J. T. Julian and Son, Limited, regarding £219 owing to witness' firm and intimated that legal proceedings would be taken if tho money was not paid. Finally witness agreed to accept a promissory note payable after six weeks. Witness duly received the note, which was signed by J. T.. Julian and Son, Limited, and took it to his bank to obtain advico regarding the note and the financial position of Julians'.

From the bank witness learned that the note required another signature. He thought J. T. Julian and Son, Limited, would not be able to meet tho note and lie accordingly suggested to Julians' that Mr. T. .Julian should personally endorse it. The accountant of Julians' said no additional signature was necessary. Witness left tho note with the accountant and in the course of a couple of days received it back. It was signed in tho top left-hand corner by defendant, who, in witness' opinion, was liable as guarantor. On tho due date the note was presented, but was dishonoured and had not yet been paid. Cross-examined, witness said that when ho accepted the note ho did not stipulate that there should be a second signature. Ho thought that when a man placed his signature 011 a promissory note lie rendered himself personally liable.

Mr. Barrowclough said that at tho time the note was given all cheques and bills from J. T. Julian and Son, Limited, were required by tho bank to bo countersigned. Defendant was countersigning officer and did not sign the promissory note with the intention that he should bo bound.

His Honor said plaintiff company must be nonsuited. There had been a complete misunderstanding between two minds and the case was a most unfortunate one. .Mr. Wilson agreed to accept a promissory note from J. T. Julian and Son, Limited, and to refrain from suing tho firm. He made a definite contract with J. T. Julian and Son, Limited, and with no one else, and when this company gave a promissory noto payable after six weeks it fulfilled its part of the contract. The note was complete at tho time it was issued and when the bank advised that a further signature was required it meant a counter-singature. Plaintiff company was nonsuited with costs, witnesses' expenses and disbursements.