CLAIM FOR £2649.

Wairarapa Age, 14 March 1933, Page 2

CLAIM FOR £2649.

PROMISSORY NOTES ALLEGEDLY DISHONOURED. CASE AT CHRISTCHURCH. CHRISTCHURCH, Marell 13. A civil action involving £2649 came up in the Supreme Court before Air. Justice Blair to-day, when Cooper and Pryce, Ltd., motor body buildiers, of Christchurch, claimed from Boyds Bros, and Kirk, Ltd., merchants, of Christchurch, the sum of £2649. The statement of claim stated that the plaintiff was the holder and payee of four promissory notes for £825, £859, £436, and £538 made by Boyds Motors, Ltd. The notes were presented for payment and dishonoured. The plaintiff also claimed interest at 8 per cent, and the costs of the action.

The defence was a general denial. It was also contended that if the promissory notes were in fact dishonoured, which was denied, no notice of the fact was given to the defendants. Mr. Donnelly, for the plaintiffs, said that the moneys claimed were concerned in dealings between the plaintiff company and Royds Motors, Ltd., which firm had paid the plaintiffs in bills. The bank had required an additional endorsement by Royds Bros, and Kirk, the defendant company. After evidence had been, given for the plaintiffs, Mr. Weston, for the defence, said that the defendant admitted that the bills were dishonoured. He asked leave to add to the statement of defence that the bills were endorsed by the defendant company solely so that Cooper and Pryce would discount the bills at the bank. The arrangements were all between Cooper and Pryce and Mr. Yates, of Royds Motors. Yates was not constituted the agent of Royds Bros, and Kirk. With regard to the receiving of notice of the dishonouring of the bills, it was earnestly hoped that all obligations could be discharged, but no promise had been given definitely. J. I. Royds, in evidence, said his endorsement of bills was given for the purpose of enabling them to be discounted. When that purpose failed his signature was valueless. _ Commenting on the facts, His Honour said he was satisfied that the account given by the witness Pryce for the plaintiff was substantially accurate. His Honour said he was by no means satisfied with the evidence of Royds. There had been a distinct economy of frankness on his part and on two occasions Royds went out of his way to colour his facts or in other words to throw dust in the eyes of the Court. Judgment was reserved. —(P.A.)