RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2902, 7 June 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Robinson and Co. v. Campbell. -L 24 10s. Mr Stewart for the plaintiff. This was a claim for the value of a double-furrow plough aud swing trees supplied. The defendant replied that the plough was lent to him by the plaintiff for trial at a ploughing match.—Mr Rossbotham proved having applied for payment last October, and having been over at the defendant’s place to see its working. The plough was returned with every evidence of its having been much used, and was strained in the beam. Evidence was given proving that the plough had been very much used.—Jos. Hambleton, engineer and agricultural machine maker, said it had been “much used and badly used.”—The d. fendant made a statement to the efiect that the plough was pressed upon him for trial at two ploughing matches, that he tried itand it would not work, and that he informed plaintiffs to that effect. He had to';d him

if the plough worked well and took a prize, he might take it; but it would not work at all. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.

1 Bank of Otago v. Gregg.— 1d34, for principal and interest on a bill of exchange. The excess over LI 00 was abandoned to bring the amount within the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr James Smith for the plaintiff; Mr Mouat for the defendant.—For the defence it, was rlieged that, since acceptance, the bill had been altered.— G. H. Campbell said the bill was for L 133 14s 3d, payable nine mouths after date. The bill was discounted at the Bank of Otago. The writing in the body of the bill was in two different hands. The signature Calvert and Campbell and the word “ nine,” were in his hand-writing, and the remainder by his clerk. There was a date to the bill prior to its acceptance, but there was no drawer’s name, nor was it made payable at any particular bank. Both those particulars were afterwards added. On the bill being dishonored he requested the Bank to sue for the amount, which they did as holders of the bill. Mr Gregg, at the time of the bill being accepted did not know where to make it payable, as he iVas about to change his account from the Bank of New Zealand, and by his instructions it was made payable at the Bank of Otago.—McCleod, clerk with Messrs Calvert and Campbell, confirmed Mr Campbell’s evidence. At the time of acceptance the signature o£ tlie drawer was a blank but the bill was dated.—Mr Mouat objected that the additions made to the bill after acceptance made it a new bill and necessitated a new stamp. He cited, in support of his views, a decision by Lord Lllenborough, in which an alteration had been made in the date after being twenty days in acceptor’s possession. On that ground, it was decided that the bill was inadmissible as evidence. In reply, Mr .Smith held that as the bill as it now appeared was only in the condition that it was originally intended to bo, therefore no new stamp was necessary. Several cases wore cited in support of this view, [f a new stamp were needed, it was when words were inserted altering the original contract ; but as the words added were only in completion of it, it was plain they did not invalidate the bill. His Worship said that, judging from evidence before him, the bill was no more than originally intended, judging by the evidence of Mr Campbell, and therefore there was a case to answer.—William Gregg first saw the bill on the Ist July, 1871. With the exception of the word nine months and the figures (which seemed to have been altered,

aud of which he was uncertain), the bill was a blank. There was also his signature acceptor. The date was not there. The completion of the bill was deferred, subject to a future arrangement with Mr Campbell. He (defendant) • was to fix a place of payment and a date to suit himself. He made^a memorandum of the transaction at the time. He never gave directions on those two points. ■Since that time he had never had any conversation with Campbell about the bill, and had no knowledge further about it until he received notice of its dishonor. The insertion of the place of payment was not by his directions, and ho never intended the Bank of Otago should be the place of payment, as he had no bank when he gave the bill. In cross examination, he considered that Mr Campbell and Mr M ‘Cleod were mistaken in saying the bill was filled tip with the exception of terms of payment. He swore the words were in the bill in an affidavit before the Supreme Court, and he considered the affidavit right. He opened an account with the Bank of Otago, July Sth, the clay after the bill bore date. He purposed making the bill payable at his office, as he did not wish the transaction to appear in his current account. He did not tell Mr Campbell so. He did not inform Mr Campbell he had opened an account with the BankofOtago, and didjaot say so positively at first, because he wished to refresh his memory, although he did not now doubt it. Mr Smith called Mr Mitchell, as an expert, _to give evidence as to whether the two lines of writing in the bill were written at the same or differ- nt time. In his judgment they were written at the same time. His Worship said the denial of Gregg was so express of having given directions to Campbell to insert the words “ Bank of Otago,” he must give judgment for the defendant. Apliu v. Flexman.—Lloo. This was a claim for work and labor done. Mr Stout for the plaintiff; Mr Shapter for the defendant. The action was brought to recover an amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff under an agreement under which he contracted to impart to the defendant a knowledge of certain improvements in tanning leather. (Left sittiug.)