court of Petty Sessions.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 188, 7 August 1869, Page 5

court of Petty Sessions.

MONDAY, AUGUST 2nd. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., 11. M., W. Douslix, Esq., J.P., and C. Coulter, Esq., J.E.] RANK OF N.Z. V. P. o’nWYEU. Mr. Pitt appeared for the Bank, and the claim was in respect of a dishonored promissory note, given by defendant to the Breach Committee, who had received an advance from tho bank upon it. Mr. Pitt called on defendant to give evidence. Mr. Nelson, for defendant, declined to allow him to appear, although present in Court, because lie had not been subpoenaed, alleging that the Court had ruled to that effect previously. A lengthy argument ensued between the lawyers; subsequently Mr. Pitt read a clause of tho llcsident Magistrates’ Act, which seemed clear and conclusive to tho Bench, who ruled that defendant should give evidence. Peter O’Dwyer, farmer, Spring Creek, having had the note handed to him, was asked to look at it Mr. Nelson objected. After a pause, the witness said the signature and date was his writing, but was not sure whether the remainder was. The note was brought to him by beeves. John Xissling deposed, am Manager of the bank of New Sir. Nelson wished to object to tho note being put in as evidence, as being insufficiently stamped. Mr. Pitt said the stamp [ld.] was sufficient, and was prepared to prove it. Ho then quoted Bylos on Bills to prove that the note was due on demand. The Bench said the note was dated in 18(5, consequently it must have matured long ago. Mr. Pitt asked them to say whether the note was good or not, that is, sufficiently stamped ; as, if it was not, he should call upon them to inflict the penalty of £SO, in accordance with the Act. The Bench ruled that the bill was payable on demand. Air. Nelson raised a further objection, that as the note was under £5 value it was invalid, because it did not contain the place of abode of the payee, nor of endorsees, as required by certain old English Acts, and because it contained the words “or order.’’ The bench said the note was in order. Mr. Ivissling’s examination continued : The note had been presented for payment, but bad not been paid. The Bank was the holder, and bad given value for it. Eor the defence, Mr. Nelson asked the bench to read the passages he had marked, and consider whether the note should not have had the payee and endorsee’s place of abode upon it V After a lengthened deliberation, the Court deferred judgment until Monday next. SAME V. V. ADAMS. Mr. Pitt, for plaintiff, said this was a similar case to tho last, being for a promissory note for £lO. Ho understood defendant was willing to confess judgment, but had not done so. Mr. Kissling proved that the note was given by defendant, and for which value had been paid by the Bank, having advanced upon it. Judgment for plaintiff, with £2 costs, the witness not claiming expenses. PATRICK V. ©’DWYER. In this case plaintiff did not appear, and the case was struck out. Patrick had engaged to work during the winter for the defendant, but after a little more than a week, had left without notice. Mr. Nelson applied for costs, but" the bench refused to allow them, as it was not plaintiff’s fault that his case did not come on at the last sitting, but that of the magistrates, who did not attend. KANE V. o’DWYEE. This was a similar case to the last. Plaintiff did not appear; but it was stated that he lived in the neighborhood, and could have attended had he seen fit. £1 16s. costs were therefore allowed to defendant. 35YTHF.LL V. WARNER. This was a claim preferred by Captain Bythcll, of the Blenheim Yolunteers, for 30s. due by defendant, a member of the corps. Mr. Pitt, for defendant, said he would admit all the facts, but objected on the point of law. Captain Bythcll said ho would admit that no more than 3s. could be recovered. He had served a notice on defendant, signed by Captain Baillie, but he had not a written authority, nor was it required. A long argument was held in reference to the rules, from which it appeared that a code of rules had been drawn up and submitted, which were refused. These were afterwards amended, but the only copy, except that at the Defence Office, was mislaid and could not be found ; consequently the corps was considered to be without rules of its own,

and therefore a model code attached to the Regulations came into force. According to these, all fines were to be paid on the Ist of the following month, and if not paid within three months, could not be recovered. Mr. Pitt argued that the right of action was limited by the following clause of the Volunteer Act, which says:

“ No action or .prosecution against any officer or volunteer for anything done or purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act, shall be commenced after the end of three mouths from the doing of such act, nor until one month’s notice in writing of the action, and of the cause thereof, has been given to the defendant ; and in any such action the defendant may plead the general issue, and give the Act and this special matter in evidence at the trial ; and no plaintill’ shall recover in any such action, if a tender of sufficient amends was made before the action was brought, or if a sufficient sum of money has been paid into court by defendant after the action was brought.” The Bench considered that subscriptions not come within this rule, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the sum claimed with|costs.