A SINGULAR STORY

Dunstan Times, Issue 1161, 30 May 1884, Page 3

A SINGULAR STORY

Invkkcargill. May 23. A peculiar cas was hea'd at the esident Magistrate’s Court to-lav. A stoickeepe. in town sued a settler fer the value of a eli quo dra" u <• y him, and paid by plaintiff in the, ordinary cn ran of lur-im ss for goods supplied to a thirl pa ly. Hefondant bad had an account at ihe hank, hut when the cheque was presents' l tin to wc;e no funds hj nee the action. Defendant, wont, not swear that the ch quo was not his, hut told ,the following s ory : About the da'e it. was drawn he arrived at an up country township with Ll3 in ca-n, and put unfop the niuht at a amre, not a licensed house. He had some liquor, and was of opinion from its i fleets that he had been drnege He had sept for 24 hours a f, erit. and on earning to his senses round he had 3* left. He had never been in the place In fore, did not know the sto- keeper, and did not gamble. He thon t.t he had spent about lilt in liquor for biinse f and others. He was not aware that ne had signed the cheque produced and got no value for it. Together with the cash he misse I he must have »pcnt £2O that night, if it had not been taktn hy unfair means. Defendant’s counsel contended that the cheque was not negotiable, as it had a memo, endorsed on the bach “U. H.A.” to the account, of the party in whose favour it was drawn—i.e., the np-conntry storekeeper. It was. theref re, not a legal tender for goods bought in a store, as plaintiff he : d. The Magistrate held that the memo, was not explicit enom.h to warrant such au assumption, and pave judgment for the amount, pointing out that defendant had a leme ly against the original holder of the cheque if he had not received value for it. The plaintiff produced two more cheques of the fondant’s which had been dishonoured The storekeeper who received the ch>que has been before the Court on previo ,» occasions for sly grogselling.