RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 83, 28 February 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Tuesday, FEBBtrABT, 27th, 1877. [Before Edwabd Shaw, Esq., R.M.] BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V. BEEVES. Claim for £104, reduced to £100 to bring the claim within the jurisdiction o* the Court. Balance of account. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Staite for defendant. Colin Campbell— l am the represenfaof the Bank of New Zealand in this town. Mr Reeves was a constituent of the Bank, and he is indebted to the Bank for the sum sued for. Eepeated applications were made to defendant for the amount, and he offered to give promissory notes for £10 each at different dates to cover the amount. The offer was not accepted, and the amount is now due. Cross- examined — The items enumerated are taken from the Bank ledger. I cannot swear positively that all the sums charged were advanced, as I was not in charge of the Bank when the account was opened. By the Bench — The cheques drawn on the Bank for the overdraft are in existence. Mr Eeeves never disputed the amount. Mr Pitt said he was prepared, if necessary, to prove each item separately. Mr Staite said the account was vague. There was nothing but the hare statement that the sums had been adyanced, but there was no absolute proof of the advance. By the Bench — I was not in charge of the Bank when the account was first opened, but I can produce the cheques. Eeeves had two accounts. No. 2 account was his business account. No. 1 account was a speculating account, and wa3 kept distinct. The scrip account does not appear. Cross-examination continued — I don't know how No. 2 account was opened. I don't know that that account was ever opened under a special arrangement with Mr Lapham. I do not know whether there are items in the particulars for scrip in the Just-in^Time Company, but I will swear to the correctness of the account. On June 20, 1874, there is charged a sum for a Just-in-Time call for £3 2s 6d, but I cannot say whether there was a special arrangement in connection with that item with Mr Lapham. Never heard of a partnership between Mr Eeeves and Mr Lapham in connection with No. 2 account, and think it most unlikely that such should be the case. His Worship said that he did not see that it would help defendant even if there was a partnership, because it would be no defence as defendant's remedy would rather be against his partner and not against the Bank. Cross-examination continued— l am not a manager. Mr Lapham is the manager of the Bank. Mr Staite said his instractions were that the Bank used Mr Beeves for purposes of speculation. Cross-examination continued — I asked defendant for a settlement of the full sum. I asked him to settle the balance of No. 2 account. Ho was aware of the

amount, as he applied for his pass book from time to time. I cannot say when he had a pass-book showing the account at £104. I wrote to him stating the amount and requesting payment. I did not mention the sum of £100 ; it was reduced to that sum to bring the ease into Court. The account was balanced half-yearly by the Bank, and interest is charged. The accounts involve many thousands of pounds, and balances are carried forward from time to time. The interest is charged on the general account, and on the Just-in-Time shares as well as the rest. Com pound interest is charged. Defendant has a No. 1 account which is not squared up. I do not know why No. 2 account was opened. Re-examined— lf I held two or three negotiable instruments of a person should bring an action on each. I have had some experience in banking. It is not an extraordinary thing for one person to hold two accounts. They are not two business acounts in thi3 case. One account is for scrip purchase, and the other is his business account. He was allowed a certain sum to speculate, and he placed the scrip in the hands of the bank as security, and subsequently the scrip became valueless. ~ No. 1 account was for the specific purpose of speculating in the Keefton district. We still hold the scrip as security. Some of the scrip was sold, and the proceeds placed to the credit of No. 1 account. lam quite certain that after I made application for the account I had a conversation with defendant, and he offered to give me promissory notes for the amount. He never disputed the sum. He has never been asked by me to liquidate his No 1 account. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Staite raised three nonsuit points. First, that defendant could not be exposed to two causes of action on one account. It had been proved that de« fendant had two accounts with the Bank, and had been sued only on one of them. Second, that as the account extended over several years and embraced several thousands of pounds, it was outside the jurisdiction of the Court, as the Court in adjudicating upon the balance sued for really adjudicated upon the whole of the account, which the Court had no power to do ; and third, that no proof had been given of any of the items. There was nothing in Court but the bare bill of particulars, to the absolute correct* ness of which Mr Campbell was unable Ito swear. The bank ledger had not been I produced, nor the cheques or other documents. Mr Campbell had further ad« mitted that he was not in charge of the bank wheu the account was opened, and therefore could not possibly swear as to its correctness. There was a fourth ground, that the particulars were not full I and explicit as required by the Resident Magistrate's Act. There was nothing to show for what the money was due. For all the particulars showed to the contrary the claim might be for painting or any* thing else. It was not shown that the meney had been advanced in the way of banking. In short there was no deolara* tion of the canse of action. Mr Pitt having replied at some length to the nonsuit points raised, His Worship said that as to the point of the bill of particulars not disclosing the ground of action, he was of opinion that in order to establish Mr Staite 's contention on that head it should have been shown that defendant was embarrassed by the incompleteness of the bill of particulars, and as that had not been done the point would have to be overruled. Upon the point of the absence of proof in support of the claim, the Court was of opinion that the evidence of Mr Campbell had prima facie established the claim. As to the question of the aggregate amount of the account exceeding the jurisdiction of the Court, though the point was in some respects a novel one, no authorities in support of it had been submitted— no* thiDg at any rate to lead the Court to depart from what had hitherto been the regular practice. As to the first point raised in reference to the division of the cause of aotion he was prepared to admit the point raised presented features of difficulty. On the one one hand, if it were held that a plaintiff could come into Court and recover a total indebtedness by instalments it would open the door to a system of duplicity, which would not be at all desirable. He could not help remarking, however, that ifc appeared defendant was taking advantage of an immoral defence. However, «s the point was of considerable importance, be would reserve the point to enable him to look up authorities, and give a mature judgment upon it. Defiance Company v Twohill.— Claim £8 7s 6d for calls. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount with costs. Mr Staite for plaintiff. United Band of Hope Co v« Demas» key,— Claim for £9 7s 6d for calls. No appearance of defendant. Mr M'Lean, the legal manager of the company, proved the indebtedness. Judgment for the amount with costs. Same v. Tomlinson.— Claim for £9 16s 8d for calls. Mr Pitt for plaintiff; No [appearance of defendant. Judgment for ! the amount with costs. Victoria Company v. Dee.— Claim for calls, £8 5s 3d. Mr Pitt for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Mr M'Lean, the legal manager of the company proved the claim. Judgment for the amount with costs.

Same t. James Murphy.— Claim £3 15s 6d for calls. No appearance of the defendant. Mr Pitt for plaintiff. Judgment for the amount with costs. Wolfe v. Bergin. — An action to recover the sum of £11 2s 6d, for goods sold and cash supplied. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Staite for the defendant. Joseph Wolfe deposed— l live at Antonio's. I have supplied the defendant with the potatoes, the grass seed, the milk, and the cash lent charged for. I applied to him frequently for the money, and be said he was hard up and could not pay. Cross-examined— The bill attached to the summons was made out for me by Mr Campbell. He copied it from a bill made out by me. I did not bring my book ; it was too heavy for me to bring. I swear distinctly the account produced is I correct. The settlements I had with defendant were not complete. Will swear distinctly that in January, 1874, defendant owed me money. I was supplying Bergin with milk when he had cows of his own. The sale note produced was given for money. I did not say it was for goods. I swear that the money was given to Bergin by me. It might be that the sale note was given to me by Bergin to protect him because he was sued by the Govern* ment for not having a business license. Will swear that Bergin never gave me £6 either in notes or gold. I recollect buying a pair of boots for Mrs Bergin. She paid me for them. Defendant paid me £16 2s. The reason I issued the summons was because he told me to do it, There has been no ill feeling between us. Bergin never caught me milking his cows Never bad any disturbance with him about any timber. Re-examined — Certain the bill is cor* rect, and that he owes me the money. It was not because of any quarrel that I sued him. By the Court— He paid me the £16 on four occasions. It is over two yours ago. We pay as high as £25 per ton for potatoes at Antonio's. I kept the account in a small pocket-book. I made the entries at the time. The sale note was chiefly for goods. lam not on bad terms with -him. I would lend him a pound tomorrow. James Bergin — I don't owe plaintiff one single shilling. The bill I believe is in the handwriting of his sister»in-law. I have put in a receipt dated January 24th, that was a full settlement of the account up to date. I never owed lim one shilling at the time I gave him the sale note. I was sued for illegally occupying Government land, and thought my property was in danger and made it over to plaintiff. Subsequently the prosecution was abandoned, and when I asked him for the receipt, he said he had burnt it. I paid him 5s 9d for the grass seed. Got no milk from him after May, 1874. He swore false)} when he said that he served my wife with milk in May, 1874. Am quite certain of this. He has also sworn falsely in saying that I paid him £19 out of the £30. Plaintiff offered to settle the case for £5. Caught him on one occasion milking my cow, and on another occasion taking timber from my place and exposed him. He has sued me for trespass. Cross-examined— He owes me 5s for cash lent. The account is a pure invention. In giving judgment, his Worship said that it was utterly impossible to reconcile the conflicting statements of the parties in any other way than by a firm conviction that either one or the other of the parties had perjured himself in a most shocking manner. What tended to aggravate the offence was that the whole matter in dispute was a mere trifle, and it was dreadful to think that any man should come into Court under such circumstances, and recklessly abuse one of the most sacred of obligations. It could be fully understood that in certain cases there might be room for a conflict of testimony, the result possibly of mistaken deductions or such like, but in the case before the Court there was no such excuse. The facts of the case were simple enough, and there was not the least doubt in the world that either one or the other of the parties had deli* berately and wilfully violated his oath. There was nothing for the Court but to dismiss the case. The Court then adjourned.