SUPREME COURT. October 23, 1844. Before H. S. Chapman, Judge. Martin v. Taylor,

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 3, 26 October 1844, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. October 23, 1844. Before H. S. Chapman, Judge. Martin v. Taylor,

This action, which was tried at the last sittings of the Supreme Court, was brought to recorer the amount of certain bills of exchange drawn by . the defendant on Mr. Lyall^ of Wellington, and endorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he drew merelyas agent to the plaintiff, to whom he handed over the bills, and that he never had any consideration. It appeared by the evidence that Taylor was employed by the plaintiff to sell a cargo of pigs from the coast, that he sold them to Lyall, and the bills were handed over as alleged. They were discounted for plaintiff by Mr. Wade, and when paid Mr, Wade pressed Martin for the money, and threatened to apply to Taylor, the former said, " don't trouble Taylor, he had nothing to do with it ; he was only agent, and has no interest in the bills." There was some other evidence to show that, at one time, the plaintiff intended to look to Lyall alone ; and the Jury found for the defendant, but the learned Judge gave Mr. Hanson leave to move for judgment turn obstante veredicto. On the first motion day Mr. Hanson moved accordingly, relying on Lefenore v. Lloyd,, 5 Taunt., 749, where it was ruled that a broker or agent drawing a bill on the vendee of goods is liable to his principal. Mr" Ross, for defendant, contended that this

case differed with Lefenore v. Lloyd, as the plaintiff had over and over again admitted that Taylor was not liable, and had agreed to take he security, of Lyall alone. On Monday last his Honor gave judgment' as follows — Judgment. — This action was brought to recover the amount of two bills of exchange drawn by the defeudant on one Lyall, and indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he was the agent of the plaintiff, for the sale of certain pigs, that he sold the same to Lyall, and drew the bills in question in his capacity of agent, and that he never received any consideration for the same. All the material averments of the plea were proved at the trial, and there was evidence to show that the plaintiff, at one time, looked to Lyall alone, and the Jury found for the plaintiff;, but, on the authority of Lefenore v. Lloyd, I gave the learned Counsel for the plaintiff leave tp move for judgment non obstante veredicto. In that case it was held, that where the agent draws a bill on the buyer, he renders himself liable to his principal, and this view is confirmed by other cases, and remains unshaken by any subsequent decision. It is contended by theJearned Counsel for the defendant, that as evidence was given that the plain tiff in tended to take the security of Lyall alone, the plaintiff is relieved from the rigour of the rule in Lefenore v. Lloyd, but it is established by a long line of decisions,* that parol evidence cannot be received to relieve an agent from responsibility as drawer or indorser of a bill of exchange, although his principal, as in this case, may have had notice of all the circumstances. For these reasons there must be Judgment for plaintiff. * Ledbitter v. Farrow, 5 M. & S., 345. Sowerby v. Butcher, 2 C. & M., 368. R. v. Pettet, 1 Aud. & £11., 196.