THE MISTAKEN IDENTIFY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2051, 20 September 1880, Page 3

THE MISTAKEN IDENTIFY.

i The case of Ford, Newton, and Mursden v Donnelley came up again yesterday at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, on adjournment from last week. Sinking the disputed faet as to the cause of the holding oyer of the presentation of the dishonoured cheque, it was then left for argument as to whether or not that holding over was fatal to the claim of the plaintiffs for the amount of the cheque. Ihe arguments, at this second hearing, brought forward by Mr Harper in favor of the liability of Connolley were as ingenious as the facts or the case had been peculiar. For instance, assuming,which to some extent was not denied, that a post-dated cheque was actually a bill of exchange, he claimed for it’the throe daya grace that custom allows between the date and payment of instruments of that kind. It this were conceded, it would have carried the plaintiff over the period during which it was said he had been unduly delaying, and absolved him from that charge. There is a novelty about this point, which, though not mentioned, is apparent, days of grace wore instituted, it may be fairly supposed, for the benefit of the acceptor of a bill, but here we have the custom claimed for the benefit of the payee. There is probably no reason why the rule should not work both ways, but this application of it cannot have been often sought. Other points raised by Mr Harper were equally refined, and not being favorably received, without coming to an issue, Mr Harper decided to fight the battle over again, and took a nonsuit.