CHEQUE DISPUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 27 May 1931, Page 6

CHEQUE DISPUTE

STEPHENS V. TURLEY. At the Magistrates’ Court at Greymouth yesterday, before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., Peter Stephens, of Hokitika, represented by Mr J. W. Hannan claimed £67 13s 4d' from FredericK Lovell Turley, who was represented by Mr W. J. Joyce, in respect of a cheque for £SO that had been dishonoured, and interest at the rate of eight per cent.

After hearing evidence the Magistrate, in giving his decision, said the case was a most unusual one. He had previously non-suited plaintiff in face of the evidence given by defendant and the witness Warren, that plaintiff’s case was not. proved. There was, now, however, new evidenre produced which was evidence of considerable importance. The horse was originally bought in 1926 as a partnership horse, although -it was in Stephen’s name. In December 1926, accounts were made up by plaintiff showing the expenses incurred with the horse to the end of September, 1926, and defendant gave a cheque to plaintiff for £SO as his half share ol the expenses. On December Ist, it was to be registered as being jointly owned and the reg straion Was accordingly signed by both plaintiff and defendant; and forwarded to the secretary of the Racing Conference, and he replied that it was a duly , registered partnership. A letter, was received by Mr Stephens a : lyeek .la tor notifying him the joint registration was terminated and return, ing 60s insurance fees. The termination "of"the joint registration of partnership was effected in consequence of two letters .which were both signed by Turley, one on bis own behalf and the other “P. Stephens, per F. Turley.” Apparently Mr Stephens did not know tile letters were being sent, and Turley said if he signed the letter, on behalf Stephens, lie had done so with Steplien’s authority. Stephens did not admit defendant could sign the letter on bis behalf. It should have been the same as the application for the registration of partnership, and signed by both parties. Turley had signed both letters. It had been suggested, bn behalf of plaintiff, that that was done as a consequence of the trial between Gay Gauntlet and Some Ab’ey, which was held in order to test the value of Gay Gauntlet, and the trial, which was no doubt held, proved l the horse not to. be of much value. Plaintiff then got the letter from Mr Sellars, The parties came together, and defendant said it was arranged that plaintiff .should buy tile half share for the £SO and that the cheque should be cancelled and Stepliens take over the horse and race it. The onus was on the defendant to prove that this was the arrangement. He could not attach much importance to defendant’s own evidence, when he had the trial and sent the lctteis liim.self. Warren could only speak to the best of his knowledge that some arrangement was come to. Warren’s evidence was offset very considerably by the new witnesses, Mr Murdoch and Mrs Johnston. Murdoch said the cheque was ’handed to him by Mr Stephens for' collection. The cheque was in the possession of plaintiff and no attempts were made by defendant at the time in reagin the cheque when the transaction was arranged between them, and the presumption was that plaintiff had a legal right to keep possession of the cheque. Evidence showed that Gay Gauntlet was not worth £IOO especially after the trial. It was no doubt dear at any price. Taking all into consideration tlie cheque remained unchallenged in the hands of plaintiff. He luu. mad ,* two attempts to collect the value of the cheque, and it seemed plaintiff bad been under the impressoin all along that be was entitled to its value. The onus was on defendant to show that the cheque had been cancelled and the part nership dissolved. This had not been prove’J. Judgment- would- be entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed £67 13s 4d, Court costs £2 19s, witnesses’ expenses £4 6s 10d. and sol eitors’ fees £4 7s Bd, a total of £79 6s 10(1.