RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT, HAMILTON. Thursday, March 10.—[Before H, W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.] Civil Case.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1357, 12 March 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT, HAMILTON. Thursday, March 10.— [Before H, W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.] Civil Case.

J. Cbaig v. A. Connelly. — Claim, £8 15s, amount of a dishonored promissory note.— Mr W. M. Hay for plaintiff. Defendant was unrepresented by counsel. — The first witness called was the defendant, Arthur Connelly, who admitted having given a promissory note to Mr Pascoe on the 27th September last, due on the 30th of the following month. He did not know, ifc was made payable lit the Bank of IXpvr Zealnnd, Hamilton. He had paid Pascoe the a.mQW#-of tijf bfll %\%xfi fHe|Ot^ of

October. — The plaintiff, a firewood merchant residing in Auckland, deposed that he had received the promissory note, in the ordinary course or business, from Mr Pascoe. It had been duly presented for payment and .dishonored, and the money had not been paid. He had never authorised anyone to receive the money for him. — S. Pascoe deposed to the signature on the bill produced being the defendant'?. — By the defendant : You paid me the amount of the bill since.— By the Bench : The bill was made payable at the Bank of New Zealand when drawn. Believed the money was paid after the bill had been dishonored. The receipt produced appeared to be dated 3rd October, 1880} but there must have been a mistake in the date, because he was under the impression the bill was sent back to Auckland before Connelly paid him. When he received the money he sent it down to Mr Hale, of Auckland (Mr Craigs agent), and got an acknowledgment in writing from Mr Hale, which he had somehow mislaid. Believed he had told Connelly that the latter would have to get the promissory note back. — W. Tonka, accountant at the Bank of New Zealand, Hamilton, deposed that the bill had been duly forwarded from Auckland to the Hamilton Branch, and returned marked "No account." The receipt produced, given by Pascoe to Connelly, was dated 3rd of October, 1880. This was the case for the plaintiff. — For the defence the defendant went into the witness-box and deposed that he had paid the money to Pascoe, not recognising Mr Craig in the matter at all. He had asked Pascoe repeatedly for the bill, but had failed to get it. To the Bench : He knew nothing of promissory notes, and believed this to have been the first he had drawn. — Joseph Craig deposed that the late Mr Hale had never been his agent, or authorised in any way to receive money on his behalf. If Pascoe said he was, he said what was untrue. Mr Pascoe had clone business with the witness through Mr Hale, but the latter was acting as Pascoe'a agent, not his.— The Bench said it was clear that the defendant was liable for the amount of the bill, and judgment would be given agaiust him with costs. Judgment for £8 15s 6d, and costs, £5 Is 6d. The defendant stated that he would not pay the money.