DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4268, 31 October 1876, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, October 31. (Before His Honor Judge Bathgate)

Neill and Boyd v. Wm. Maftland, of Oamaatj.—Claim L 194 os6d. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, Mr Macassey defended. —The plaint set forth that plaintiff sold and delivered to John Harbison, grocer, of Oamaru, certain goeds of the value of LlB7 16s, defendant guaranteeing and promisingthe the plaintiffs to be responsible for the due payment of the price of the goods. That on delivery, and since, Harbison and defendant had refused to pay the amount, which was now sued for with interest. The second count alleged that plaintiffs accepted a bill of exchange tor three months, drawn by them upon Harbison, for the said amount, payable three months afterdate to the plaintiffs' order, defendant guaranteeing and promising that the bill should be paid oh maturity, yet the said bill hid not been paid. For the defence, it was contended as to the first two branches of the plaintiffs' plaint I that defendant did not promise or contract to guarantee and indemnify the plaintiffs against loss, as in the plaint alleged; and further, that there was no memorandum in writing of such contract and indemnity as is lequired by the Statute of Frauds; as to the third branch of the plaint, the defendant contended that the bill of exchange sued upon was not stamped as by law required, nor was the stamp affixed to the said bill cancelled in manner and form as by law required. After arguments on the law points, His Honor said that, seeing Harbison's signature was admitted, and that the bill was stamped before being sent away for acceptance, he was inclined to hold that the bill had been properly cancelled. This being the only defence, judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff. Mr Macassey gave notice of appeal.