A BIG CLAIM.

Western Star, Issue 2217, 28 June 1898, Page 2

A BIG CLAIM.

At Invercargill the case of James Fleming v. the Bank of N*w Zealand, a olaim of £IO,OOO, damages for dishonoring obeqoes amounting to £257, was before the Supreme Court on Saturday. The plaintiff alleged that the manager agreed to give him accommodation to the amount of €1200: that he made purchase* of sheep and issued cheques in excess of that sum, understanding that the Southland Frozen Me<»t Company had paid into his credit £IOOO ; that instead of paying cash the oomoany lodged warrants to that value with the Bank, which the manager agreed to accept. His income as a sheep buyer had averaged from £IOOO to £llOO a year, but owing to the Bank's acion he was now unable to buy from the farmers direct. ; At the close of the case, Mr Ollivier, counsel for defendants, moved for a Donsnit on the following grounds : (1) No consideration for the alleged contract; (2) the alleged contract was made by a person who had no authority from plaintiff to make it; (3) even assuming the oontraot to have been proved, there was no proof of dishonour. Counsel said the very warrant for 2250 sheep brought to the bank manager was a store warrant for articles it was intended should be sold, and the proceeds applied to discharge, so far as they would go, Fleming's overdraft of £l2oo.—Mr Justice Peunefather refused a nonsuit on the first and third grounds, and in regard to the seoond wished to henr nrgament by counsel. Later on .is Honor ask<»<l if it was more oooveaient for the plaintiff's agent to give a warrant instead of deoositing £IOOO, and the bank accepted it, were the bank justified in breaking the oontraot 1 The bank knew that Fleming did not authorise Thompson, of the freezing works, fo give a warrant, but atill they accepted it. The point was one for deep argument, and he reserved further consideration, stating that in the event of judgment bring in favour of plaintiff defendants could revert to it. He, however, dismissed the other two grounds, explaining that the three would be all subject to appeal. Hia Honor took 2£ hours to sum up. The jury were given H issues, and after deliberating 3J hours they returned with an answer to every question exoept the one as to whether the time taken by the bank was reasonable to make enquiries to ascertain the purpose for which the cheques were issued. They assessed the amount of damages at £2OOO. The case was adjourned by consent to Dunedin for further consideration, plaintiff to have leave to move for judgment, and defendant leave to mov* for a nonsnit'on all or any of the grounds on irhioh be had applied at this trial.