DISTRICT COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3206, 7 October 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7.

(Before His Honor Judge Kenny.)

JEFFARES V. THB NATIONAL BANK OF

NEW ZfeALAJiD,

At the close of the plaintiff's case yesterday, Mr Lascellea asked that the plaintiff might be non-suited on the ground that the evidence did not disclose a sufficient ground of action. Hie Honor then intimated that he would take time to consider the matter, and at the sitting of the Court this morning he said that, in answer to Mr Lascelles, Mr MeLean had contended at length, first that the bill bad been paid twice on the representations of Mr Hamilton ; second, that there had been undue pressure put upon the plaintiff, and third that the plaintiff had paid involuntarily. In reference to the first point, that the money had been paid twice Hie Honor said that it could not be contended that any representations made by Mr Hamilton were made fraudulently, and the question was as to whether there was any mistake as to facts on the part of the plaintiff. The second and third points were the same, and simply meant that there was undue pressure-—that there was coercion which the law could recognise. His Honor after quoting a number of authorities bearing on the case, said he was unable to say to the jury that there was any mistake of facts on the part of plaintiff, who in his evidence had said that when he gave the bills and other securities he was quite aware that be was paying what he should not. He was perfectly acquainted with the facts ; there was not a scintilla ofevidenceofawant of knowledge of facts on the part of the plaintiff. On the second point, that the money was paid under coercion, it would be necessary to consider if there was such coercion as in the eye of the law would form a ground of action. After quoting a number of cases bearing upon the question of coercion, His Honor said there was evidence that Dransfield and Co. had a large overdraft from the National Bank, and where there was an overdraft the bank had a lien on all securities deposited by their client unless there was some special agreement to the contrary. Wae there anything said to make this deposit a special one ? Had Ridings any authority to bind the bank in accepting a number of doubtful fiecurities ? He thought not. There was no evidence to show that Ridings reported any conversation he had bad with Mr Dransfield to Mr Hamilton. Mr Hamilton had simply found an ordinary pay-slip containing nothing about any special arrangement regarding the deposit, and there was no evidence to chow that Ridings had told Mr Hamilton about any special arrangement. Hamilton had no opportunity of knowing if anything had been said to Ridings about a special arrangement. There was no evidence of undue pressure ; the plaintiff was simply anxious to make arrangements with the banker to avoid going into

I Court. The banker had a perfect right to protect himself against a creditor. There was not an atom of evidence that Mr Hamilton had said anything Which he knew to be untrue, or that he did anythingbut insist upon his legal rights. The plaintiff had the power of turning round and saying, " I will not meet those bills; I have had no value for them." He could have done this if they had been already paid, and allowed the bank to sue him ; but he had paid the bills when they had become due. It appeared to the Court that it was absolutely unable to say that there was any evidence to go before the jury. The question remained, what was the plaintiff to do under the circumstances. He could accept a nonsuit, or allow the Court to direct the jury that there was no evidence to go before them, and to bring in a verdict for the defendant.

Mr McLean said that after what had fallen from His Honor, the proper course would be for him to take a non-suit. The matter had been decided without Mr Hamilton's evidence being taken, and he would accept a non-suit with the ultimate view of putting Mr Hamilton in the box. His Honor then ordered that a nonsuit be entered up. Plaintiff to pay costs, witnesses' expenses, and counsel's fees.