AN IMPORTANT CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 898, 17 May 1889, Page 27

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

(PER PRESS ASSSOCIATION.) Wanganui, May 10.

At the Supreme Court an important case, the Bank of Australasia versus the Patea Building Society (claim for £1229 6s sd), has lasted two days. Mr Fitzherbert appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Mr Barnicoat for the defendants. In opening the case Mr Fitzherbert said a cash credit bond was the subject of dispute. The execution and claims were admitted, but the defence set forth was certain legal objections. He would put in the bond and admissions, and that would close his case, except that he would have a right to ca'l rebutting evidence. He put in the bond, and asked his Honor to note that the demand made as alleged for £1192 13s 3d principal and £36 12s 2d interest on the 13th August, 1888, was acknowledged to have been made, and the amount was still due and unpaid, with interest accruing. His Honor raised the point as to whether the defendant Society were sued as jointly and severally responsible, and though Mr Fitzherberb claimed that he sued in both capacities, the point was not settled. Mr Barnicoat said the defeuce was really that the bond was obtained under misrepre. sentations to the sureties at tho time. It was principally to the effect that the sureties in signing were not to incur any personal responsibility whatever ; that it was usual for directors so to-sign, because the bank required it. When the book was signed in 1883 the bank had a bond, but apparently wanted something better. One of the then bondsmen (Wm. Dixon) was a bankrupt, another was a bankrupt, one (Haywood) had no means, Keys was dying, and one man had left the Colony. Mr Norman, the Bank Manager, had this inducement to get some more solvent gentlemen on the bond, and it seemed impossible that they would have signed the bonds had they known what they were doing. Only one of the signatures had £2OOO of interest in tho Society, the others being only nominally interested. At a moeting of tho Directors Mr Norman attended aod produced the new bonds, which he represented would not make them personally liable. The evidence of the signatories was taken, na well as that of Messrs Norman and Webster, bank managers at Patea. His Honor took about two hours to sum up, and the jury then retired, returning to Court with the following answers to the issue : 1. (a) Did Mr Norman represent to the defendants that they would incur no personal liability whatever by signing ? Answer : Yes. (b) That the said bond was a mere matter of form ? Answer : Yes. (c) That the defendants would never be called on to pay any money under such bond ? Answer: Yes. (d) That a bond in similar terms was always signed upon a change of Directors of a corporate body owing money to a bank. Answer : Yes. (e) That if the defendants signed the bond they would only do so as Directors of the Society, for the purpose of binding the said Society, and not for the purpose of rendering themselves personally liable. Answer: Yes. 2. Were such representations untrue ? Answer : Yes. 3. Were they untrue to the knowledge of Mr Norman ? Answer: No. 4. Were they made with the object that they should be acted upon by the defendants by executing the said bond? Answer; Yes. 5. Were the defendants induced by such representations to execute the said bond ? Answer: Yes. His Honor reserved judgment till tomorrow.