DISTRICT COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3205, 6 October 1881, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THUESDAY, OCTOBER 6.

(Before His Honor Judge Kenny.)

SNELLING V. STEVENS

Mr Lascelles appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Cornford for defendant.

On the application of Mr Lascelles, His Honor decided that fresh particulars be filed by Saturday next, and pleas by the Saturday following, and that the case be adjourned till the 20th October. JEFFARBS V. THE NATIONAL BANK OP

NEW ZEALAfcD.

This was an action to recover the sum of £171, which it was alleged had been paid twice over, and was tried before a jury of four. Mr McLean appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lascelles for defendant.

Mr McLean opened the case and called

Sam. K. Dransfield, who, sworn, said he knew the plaintiff. Plaintiff was partner in the firm of John Jeffares and Co. in 1879. He had been dealing with his (witness's) firm for some time. Usually took a promissory note from them for their account. Plaintiff gave him a promissory note for his balance in 1879. It was dated February 4tb, 1879, and the amount was £168 14s 7d. It was a four months bill. Before it became due plaintiff said he would not be able to pay it at maturity. Plaintiff gave witness a bill on account. The bill was from Lawton to Jeffares for £30 2s 9d. Witness entered the bill in bis book. The p. n. was placed in tbe National Bank in the ordinary way. The p. n. was given to Mr Hamilton, the manager. Told Mr Hamilton that Jeffares would not be able to pay his firit bill for £168 at maturity, and this was a payment on account. Could not remember what Mr Hamilton said. If he had made any objection he (witness) would have remembered it. The bill for £168 fell due in June. It was dishonored. Jeffares came to him regarding the bill, and gave witness tbe amount of the bill in cash and other promissory notes. He got a receipt for the amounts. He gave a p.n. of Macdonald's for £26 Is Bd, also one of his own £68 4s Bd, also cash and cheques for $47 3s 6d. He gave these

on June 10th. With Lawton's note, and after taking off the discount, the amounts made £168 143 7d\ He placed the amounts in the National Bauk. He went to the bank himself. He asked for Mr Hamilton, but was unable to see him. Hβ handed the payments to the Clerk at the bank. He went to the bank with a view to explain to Mr Hamilton all the circumstances attending the payments, He merely informed the clerk that he had received this money from Jeffaree, and placed it in as againet Jeffares' dishonored bill. He did not think he aiked for Jeffares , bill. It was three days overdue. If a bill had been placed at the bank for discount, and was dishonored, he would receive notice that it was diehonored, and had been charged to hie account. When charged to his account the bill would remain at the bank. Jeffares did not keep his account at the National. He did not ask for the bill because he did not think the clerk would hare the power to treat with him. He did not think the clerk would have power to give up the bill unless he paid, the fell amount in cash. For some time previous to this he had a debit balance at the bank. At the time Jeffares came to him a statement of the account between himself and Jeff tires was prepared by witness , clerk, and phown by Mr Parker to Mr Hamilton. He (witness) assented to the correctness of that statement. Did not bear Anything regarding the bills from Mr Hamilton for some time. Hamilton afterwards said he would make Jeffares pay the bill again. He said this a few days or a week after the 10th of June. He said he would compel Jeffares to pay the p.n. over again. He also made use of the words that he had " euchred" them, meaning Jeffares and his father. He meant that he had got the beet of both Jeffares and him (witness) to the extent of £168. His current account did not get credit for the bill £68 3s Bd. Some time after this he (witness) filed a deed of arrangement. The National Bank proved against bis estate. No credit was ever given him for the £68 4s 8d bill up to the time of his filing a deed of arrangement. Mr Hamilton was trustee under the deed of arrangement. During the time these negotiations were going on there was a Mr Gollop in business at the Spit. He had transactions with Mr Hamilton, in which Gollop was concerned. In reference to ■ some P.N.s under discount, Gollop was frequently discussed between Hamilton and himself. If Mr Hamilton was talking over business he generally took ootes in pencil. The word '• Gollop "on the document produced was written by Mr Hamilton.

Cross-examined by Mr Lascellee: At the time the bill for £168 14s 7d was given by Jeffares bis (witness's} overdraft might be as much as £4000. It continued about that until the time of bis getting into difficulties. He received the bill from Lawton to Jeffaree on April 28th. He received a letter on April 24th from Mr Hamilton relating to his account He will not swear he received the letter, copy of which was produced, from Mr Hamilton. Could not swear that he received tbe letter dated 28th April, copy of which was read. He could not be certain when he paid the bill accepted by Lawton into the bank. He thought it would be several days afterwards. Could not say if he delivered any other bills at the same time as Lawton's He could remember about Jeffaree' bill, and what he said when it was paid in, because Jeffares' affairs had been in his mind for about twelve months. He presumed that credit was given to him for Lawton's bill. He believed he had credit for that bill before the other bill matured. Did not think that Lawton's bill was placed with a number of other bills at the bank, and placed to bis credit, and entered in his pass-book. He would ewear positively thit. he took up the bills, cheques, and money himself, and paid them to the clerk on June 10th. It was the same day be received the money : Could not say where he wrote out the slip, or whether he wrote out a slip or not. The slip note produced was the one taken with the payments. (Slip produced and read was dated 11th June, and wae written by Mr Parker, and to be placed to tbe account current of witness). He instructed tbe money to be placed to hii current account, because he thought Jeffares , bill had been placed to hit account.

John Jeffares, sworn, said he was a storekeeper in Taradale in 1879, and for some time before. He dealt with Dransfield and Co. He had his account with the Union Bant. He usually gave promissory notes. In February, 1879, he was in debt to Dransfield and Co. for £168 14s 7d. Hβ gave them a promissory note for the amount. He gave it on the 4th February. It was at four months. He believed it was in the hands of the National Bank. It fell due on the 7th June, 1879. He gave no instructions to Dransfield and Co relative to the bill. He gave Dransfield and Co. a bill of Lawton's. He told Mr Parker that he could not make use of it; he could not get it discounted at the Union Bank. He told them to put it in the bank against the bill for £168 which was running. The £168 bill was not honored when it fell due. On account of this bill he paid in a bill of Macdonald's of £26. There was £73 5s 2d paid in altogether. The examination of this witness was proceeding when our reporter left.