SUPREME COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3114, 21 June 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

MONDAY, JUNE 20. (Before His Honor Mr Just'ce Gillies.) SUTTON V. TODD. After our report left yesterday Mr Lascelles opened the case for the defence, and called Dr Todd, the defendant, who denied that there was any dislocation at the time he attended the plaintiff. Dr. de Lisle was also called, and gave evidence as to the nature of a downward dislocation. His Honor then summed up, and the jury retired about 4 o'clock, and after being absent for three hours they returned and stated that ten of them were agreed upon a verdict. His Honor agreed to receive the verdict, which was for the plaintiff on all the issues, the damages being assessed at £150. Judgment was given for this amount, and Mr Lascelles stated his intention of moving for a new trial. Tuesday, June 21. His Honor took his seat at 10 "a.m. EVANS V. BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES. Mr Button, with Mr Cornford, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Smith, with Mr Cotterill, for defendants. The following special jury was dr?wn : —Messrs J. Lyon, F. Pell, J. H. Vautier, W. M. Newman, J. Rochfort, H. Sladen, F. W. Williams, F. J. Knight, J. Hindmarsh, E. Tuke, G-. T. Cross, and A. Wardrop. Mr Vautier was chosen foreman. Mr Button opened the case for the plaintiff, and called Henry Evans, who said he formerly lived at Makaraka. He kept a store and post-office there. He originally banked with the Union Bank, but In April, 1878, he went over to the Bank of New South Wales. He waited on Mr Denniston, the manager, and asked him for an advance of £2000. Mr Denniston said the account was a good one, but £2000 was too large an advance, and offered £1000. He also required security, which was agreed to be given by mortgage. Tbe understanding was that witness was to have £1000 at all times, and that Mr Denniston would not see him short of £100 to meet a trade bill. Witness transferred his account, paying in money to bis credit. He opened his account with a credit. It was some time before he wanted accommodation. Shortly after opening t! ?, account with the bank he had an interview with the manager. Told him that he (witness) was collector for the Road Board, and that he was in the habit of receiving trust money, and that he had kept a separate account at the Union Bank as trust account. He asked him if he should keep two accounts with him. The manager said " no " : if he made it one account there would be a saving of interest. On the 18th March, 1879, he went into the Bank of New South Wales, and told the manager that he was going to send a draft to Auckland for £50. He told the manager that it was to meet a bill for £90. At this time his

account was under £1000, He was sending the £50 to see if tbe firm in Auckland would accept it. The manager said, " Why not send your cheque and save interest." He sent the cheque, and called at the bank tbe same day on which the cheque was sent, and he told the manager he had sent the cheque. Tbe manager said, " All right." He received a notice dated 25th of March, stating that his account must be squarred up, even if the bank had to realise on his securities. He received the notice after banking Lours. He went to tbe bank the next day and saw the manager. Told the manager that he had called in reply to the notice he had received. He asked the manager if he was not aware that he had sent a cheque for £50 to Auckland. He said he was, and refused to pay it. Witness then called his attention to the Road Board money. There was about £40 of that money. Asked him if he would pay that. He said no, he would carry out the notice sent. The manager said that morally speaking he considered the refusal to pay the Road Board money unjust, but legally speaking he could not offer an opiuion, he must carry out his inspector's instructions. Witness then gave in his pass book, and had his account made up. The account showed £903 overdraft. He then issued a cheque for the Road Board money for £40. The cheque produced is the one. He paid it into the Bank of New Zealand, where the Road Board kept their account. The cheque was dishonored. He received a letter on the 27th from Auckland enclosing the cheque for £50. He presented it at the Bank of New South Wales as agent for Messrs Lewis of Auckland. Payment was refused. Tbe cashier said he did not want to be stuck for £50; if he paid it he would have to pay it himself. He informed Messrs Lewis that the cheque had been dishonored. A day or two after he was in tbe bank again, and told the manager about the cheque for £50. He also shewed him another cheque for £40, which Messrs Lewis had sent him to take up the bill. He and the manager bad a conversation with Mr Ward about the two cheques. The manager said he had intended to pay tbe Road Board cheque, but the reason he refused was because Mr Canick, who presented it, and be (the manager) were out of temper. But rather than have any bother he he would pay the cheque. The cheques were not afterwards paid. He suffered damage from the dishonoring of these cheques. At the time he opened an account with the Bank of New £.)uth Wales he had a certain amount f goods ordered, and when the cheques . c dishonored the goods were refused. The result was his credit was stopped. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Smith. The case was proceeding when our report left.