MAGISTRATES COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 213, 2 September 1908, Page 4

MAGISTRATES COURT.

1101UII AXU PIIOMISSOItY XOTK A yi'KSTIUX OF MKMUKY. In the S.M. (.dint yesterday morning before .Mr. 11. S. Fitzherbert, S.M., Newton King sued Frank iloskin, of Sentry lliil for £23 Us Od, being CIS lHs lid due on a promissory note, payable on •July sth, HHlj, and £4 12s 7d interest at 8 per cent. The note was given in connection with the purchase of a, plough. The defence was that the money had been paid lo 11. M. Kebbell. then plaintiff"* accountant, about fourteen days alter the due date, but this was denied by tin- accountant, who said lie had torn up the promissory note inadvertently. Defendant, on the other hand, alleged that Kebbell tore the note intentionally, remarking, "I'll destroy it this time.''' Two pieces of the l'.X. were produced. In cross-examination, the defendant stated that he had alleged previousfy that he had paid the money by cheque, but now he alleged it was paid in notes, out of his monthly milk cheque. Defendant had also explained to Mr. King that some of the money was from the proceeds of the sale of a mare and some money received from Gus Sole in .nine. Subsequently he told King that he had got some money from the A.M.)'. Society, and that he was prepared to swear he paid thb amount out of that. A few minutes later he said he was not prepared to swear to it. After further enquiry, ascertaining the date of the receipt of his advance from the A.M.t'. (in Apr'l,l 1905), he found that he did not use. that particular money. He had also stated that he had not paid any money into the bank in April, 1005, but enquiry at the bank revealed that he had "made a bloomer." In answer to a question from the Bench, defendant stated that] six months ago he had not recollected tyhere lie had got the money from; but now he !»new. At the close of the case for the defence, Mr. Quilliam said there Was more in this case than the amount of money involved—the integrity of a responsible employee in a commercial •firm, who, to clear himself, insisted on this prosecution being brought. For] this reason he called Kebbell and S. W. Shaw in rebutting evidence, the former ■producing a ledger to show that the reason why the defendant had not re ceived an account was that that account had been debited to another V. Hoskin, ■whose name was shown on the sume folio, lie positively denied that the ■amount had ever been paid to him. lvcbbell's evidence was corroborated in near Ty every detail by the manager, S. W. Shaw, who said that Iloskin relied on 'Ms form o£ receipt for the promissory •note, not the receipt of cash. Newton 'King, the phriiititf; proved that the defendant had given him several contradictory explanations of ..the payment, disproving the explanations himself. No doubt Hoskin believed lie had paid this money, but it was not possible. Kobbell lad been in liis service for nine years, 'and he had absolute confidence in his integrity. This action had been brought at the wish of Kebble.

His Worship, reviewing the evidence, said the onus of proof lay with the defendant. The latter was a man with a shockingly bad memory. His actions throughout proved either deliberate lying or bad memory. His Worship believed that it was due to a weak memory, but that the defendant was honest in' his belief that he had paid the money. He had been sorry to hear ll.'. Weston, in his address, make such a point of Kebble's action in tearing up' the bill, and urging that as proof of his] ''guilt," a word which he regretted had been introduced. There was no evidence; to support the argument or any hint of misconduct on Kebble's part. Where the evidence was so flatly contradictory he had to look to probabilities. Kebble Was an experienced accountant, a member of a business firm, with a good memory. Defendant, on the other hand, and on his own showing, was a man with a shockingly bad memory. He was not ?.\

all satisfied that the money nan ucrn paid, and was of opinion that Hoskin's belief was based upon the possession ef that receipt for the promissory note. 'Judgment was for plaintiff for the full amount of tlif promissory note, interest at (i per cent, and costs, the total being £2O 14s Bd.' A HOUSE DEAL. Xathan Clifford Bennett claimed from C. D. Chant £2l 4s, the amount alleged to be owing in connection with the sale of a horse by plaintiff, to defendant. >Mr. Wright appeared for plaintiff and '.Mr. Quilliam for defendant. The plaintiff stated that the horse had been sold -after a fortnight's trial, at £35, and it : was agreed that defendant should work out part of the amount by ploughing ami so on. As plaintiff was leaving the district he had offered to take £2O for cash settlement. George Gibbs, called: by plaintiff, said the marc was worth

■£33. liennett had told him that the iiriee was £3.'( cash or £33 if Chant would work out the amount. The defence was that liennett had more hofs>s than he could do with, and lent two to Chant. One was returned as no good. Then defendant agreed to purchase this ilia re on condition that he would work out the purchase money of £34 on plaintiff's farm. Plaintiff had now sold his farm, thus rendering it impossible for the defendant to complete the contract. The mare dropped dead in December, IflOG, but he went on "working oil the dead horse." He was prepar-'d to go on and work out the whole debt. He. would not, and could not, have bought the mare on any other terms. Defendant's evidence was borne out by a carefully-kept diary. Plaintiff was non-suited, with costs. BY DEFAULT. In an undefended case George v. Whitmore, judgment for plaintiff was entered for the amount claimed, £2 0s CJ,! and costs Bs.