WOODWARD V. GREAVES

Wellington Independent, Volume XVIII, Issue 1969, 13 October 1863, Page 1 (Supplement)

WOODWARD V. GREAVES

This case, which was founded upon promissory notes similar to those in the case of Woodward v. Austin, came before the Court in the form of an appeal by the plaintiff against a, decision by Ibe Resident Magistrate at Wellington, in favor of the defendant, on the ground that the Statute of Limitation commenced running from the date of the notes, and the six years had expired before the acfiou was brought. But the question left for the Court to determine was whether on any of the points raised in the case, the defendant was entitled to succeed ; if so, the judgment to be for the defendant, with costs in the discretion of the Court ; but if the appellant was entitled to succeed on all the points, then the judgment to be for him, with costs. His Honor here read extracts from the case. The principal distinctions between this case and that of Woodward v. Austin, are, first, that in this case there was no suggestion of evidence tending to show any agreement between the parties, or a intention on the part of the Provincial Government that the notes should not be payable at any time when payment was asked for, except that the defendant understood from their local agent in England that he would probably never be called on for payment of his ?wtes, if he remained in the Province of Wellington ; and next that the plaintiff was not Treasurer at the time when the notes were made.

I think that in this case there can be no doubt, reference being had to the points raised in the case in which I have just given judgment, that those notes here were payable at the date, but for the objections as to stamp, and that if they were not entirely void for want of stamp, the Statute would run from the time when the defendant arrived in New Zealand, which was more than six years before action was brought. But, at all events, in this case, even if the Statute did not run till demand was actually made, I think the documents could not be considered promissory notes, because at their date the plaintiff was not Treasurer of the Province of Wellington, and he could only claim as Treasurer " for the time being," when the cause of action occurred ; and if the notes were payable to such person, they were clearly bad for uncertainty, according to the doctrine illustrated by Storm v. Stirling, and Cowie v. Stirling. I am, therefore, of opinion that the appeal in this case ought to be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs,