A GUARANTEED ACCOUNT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 11249, 14 April 1908, Page 6

A GUARANTEED ACCOUNT.

An interesting case ' was heard at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Frederick Hall (Mr F. W. Nolan) proceeded against Robert Robb, con tractor (Mr T. Alston Coleriian), for the recovery of X/40 5s for the guaranteeing of account as agreed at the Bank of. Australasia (amount £200) from December 14, 1902, to March 7, 1908,, at £5 per year.

Mr Nolan briefly outlined the case for plaintiff, and called Frederick Hall, who said that in December, 1902, defendant asked him -to guarantee his account at the Bank of Australasia. Witness agreed to do so, oi - to get someone to do so. He told defendant he would have to charge something,' which' would _be £5 a year, arid anything that he could put hi his (plaintiff's) way in his line of* business he would expect hiiri to do so. . Ho accordingly signed "tlio / guarantee, . which had'been running till'March. 7 last. Defendant sent, what- little work* lie, had ti> hirii (plaintiff^. He' bad, riowcVpr, done /nothing Y for defendant for 'about two years. .In Julie, 1906, defendant owed 'liimo(plairitiff) . £370, and still, owed a balance of £95 independent y of ; the present 'dlaim. arid without interest. -lii the -couVselof'' hisYbusiries's,' and. to his Soyow 'very often; he entered' into niany guarantees, • and - always made a charge. He coiild not 'afford to take the risk without thisX' .' •"

By Mr Coleman : He guaranteed defendant's account .. at the bank, and Signed what Mi- Symes asked him 'to. The deal was with defendant. He did not think he ' had. previously guaranteed' defendant'saccount.at'the Yßank of New Zealand without charge; ho thought the late" Mr Harding had. 'He did not think there -. were any other guarantors; there niight hiive been Alexander Robb. aiid Ueorge Humphreys as co-guarantors, but that did not matter, as the account would not have been . opened *by Mr Symes unless he (plaintiJf) had signed the guarantee. - It was he who would have had to pay up. , For the defence, Mr Coleman said that what plaintiff did guarantee, in company with the late Mr A. Robb and Mr G. Humphreys, and the account was not- defendant's, but the business fii'm of R. and. J. Robb. There was no individual guarantee, and the amount .was for £300. . Defendant was quite ctaiar that the only stipulation was the placing of i any of liis work in plaintiff's way. \ Robert Robb, defendant, stated tluit his -firm JR. and J. Robb) finding that they required more capital, • asked plaintiff if, with his (defendant's) father aiid - -jyir. Himipluieys, . jie would gJ.wi"jiriiUce the firm's account. Plaintiff consented on : cojiditilm, tliat tJico fiinn placed' any business they pould- in ■ his (plaintiff's) way. He (defendant) da-ew plans which often introduced business. ..-The firm ;wa*-* at the time in the building trade. He accepted tliese terms, . and- the account •of R. and J. Robb was guarariteed. YHe (plaintiff)' had had no, account with Üba bank for some yeare previous td Mr HalPs ; guarantee, They fulfilled the terms faithfully.', placing all. . business, in plaiptiff's .way "up ' tiil two years, ago. Finding Ythiiit: the building business did not pay they dropped it arid carried, on the c^iil and firewood business. Plaintiff ■ once guariuiteed an account of £200 at the Bank of No\y;Zealand on. the same ternis as this, without clKirging any fee. Iu this' instance the amount guaranteed by the guaaantors was £300, not £200. There una_.no reference to this chum, and the first intimation he received of it was a few days prior to the issue of the summons^ -Had plaintiff asked for the charge. of £5 i>er annum he would have declined to enter into the arrangement. The cliirge was never mentioned. After. his father's, death last year plaintiff asked him to square up the guarantee, which he hatl done a« soon a& he could.

By. Mr Nolan: Plaintiff had not pressed him under threat of summons to p-iy up. That was the current account. He had nothing whatever to do with buildirg operations at Wliataupoko at the present time. His Worship said it was quite clear the account had been guaranteed and it was hardly likely it would have been done without some * charge. The amount was not. . unreasonable, and he thought plaintiff was entitled to it. Defendant lmd at one' time wlien asked whether plaintiff' had mentioned the charge re-plied,-"I don't think so," as, if he had a doubt in his mind. Mr Hall had sworn . positively^ he had mentioned the charge, and he did not think Mr Hlall was a man to come to the Court andi give false evidence. Judgment was givenfori the amount claimed, with £4 2s ccfits. ,