A LONG STANDING DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11492, 27 January 1903, Page 2

A LONG STANDING DISPUTE.

A long standing dispute over a promissory noce between Charles McNkol, bootmaker, of Christchuroh, ;tnd Mr H. G. Ml, one of the city members, received a finaJ settlement at tin? Magistrate's Court yt&terday, when Mr R. Beetham, SX, "in an action brought by MeXiwl for the recovery of £84 7e, alleged to be owiag on the bill, gave judgment for 'the defendant, Mr Ell. Mr LeoSthem appeared for the plaintiff •tixl Mr Gresswell for the defendant. Mr Ocsswell said that he iniendeJl to plead the Statute of Limitations and a i bankruptcy discharge. The promissory note was given by the defendant, not so as to render himself personally liable, but merely as a. trustee. Tho note was given sorrw sixteen or seventeen yejire ago. and the plaintiff hud not thought fit to sue upon it tiill tlw present time, and only tl>en, it was f=ubnih.t«d, because he was iiiflueaced by ]jolit.kil considerations. The defence on th<? merits might take some consklerable time, but it wiis quite clear that the debt was statute barred, and in any case, since the bill was given, the de"fondart had liled in banfcruptcv and held a discharge. Mr Leathern said he intended to prove a frexh promise nwwle in writing by the )>!aintiff in t!ie niontji of November laet. He further wibmitted that that promise would take tle> cam) out of the .Statute of

Limitations. On the 15th November. eitht-r Mr KU ~r an agent of his, Mr BuiMli, made ;ui offer in writing to'the plaintiff to pay £75, in full satwfaction of his claim, on condition that McNicol would «Mk,> a statement to the electors that the debt was one incurred by Mr Pill's father, and not by Mr EH himself. McXicol refused the £75, and refused to make the

Mr Cmnwell having replied on the law jHiints, Mr l*at/hem coirtended that the tHjceideration for the defwidan-t"s offer -was the prom.W by the plaintiff. Tlie Magistrate—But the plaintiff did rotmake the fiffer. If he did not give the consideration, wlwre is it? If consideration had h«n given it might have revived the d,ebt, but as it is I am afraid that you in* in a hole.

Mr Cresswell said he did not think there was anything to answer. Although Mr l'-ll was not persanally liabl-, he. did offer to p;iy -MoXicol the £75 if the plaintiff would do certain things, which '.he defendant thought he ought to do. \s a matter of fact, the plaintiff at the time was placarding *Jw defendant. *nd doing other things which were most improper i'he plaintiff would not do it. and the defendant said he would rely upon his le K al <Jefei.ce to the suit. He' submitted there must t>e a consideration for any new promise in order to revive a statute barred Mr Beeiham—There h*e been no conwderation. Judgment for the defendant -Mr Cresswell—l do not ask for an? cost*, a* my client specially requested me not to do so. Mr Beetham—Very wel].