SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue X, 6 January 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

, . , v CIVIL SITTINGS. '

[Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.]

, , THIS DAY. v

, . Nfltiofial B/tnk v. Mortimer. This waß an action 1 to recover 1 tfeel sum of I ,£SOO find interest upon an a ceptan-e drawn and s~6li accepted by yen Mortimer, (he defendant, and discounted ibylthe..lilßtiqnaj.] l ßfljik v,The defence was that the Bank was, at th 6* timeof Sistounting 'the; bill., aware tbac it was ncceDted.bv Morti- I trier for 1 the" Vrecial purpose of 5 purchasing ] vneßt, to « hich puri ose it was not devoted, buVwaß'<placed-'by'lStavert ta hla (ij^dit. A special jury wmb called, con'tafjlng of the .. following :r?r,C^ F. Watte .?(forema>), «• Luras, J, W. B»xton, A. W. Sdivfe, H. E. , Curtis,. J.Woo*ley»G.fTaibok K Everett, W. ! rightfoot, F. Keliing, W.^FietchW, and J. 1 Mr F n at*jfta*ea ifo* the plaintifE>; and Mr PHt iorjhe defendant. I /Mr- /Fell, h^fag' .opened the «ase for the plaintiff, called ' V ' j | . J^m'ekßeattfe, manager of National Bank: -~I prbcuce afr acceptance drafci^by Stavert „a;rvi Co, and accepte 1 by the defendant, which ' was discount' d to Sta* ert & Co. Mr Pit then opened the case for the ; .'3ef« nchnt. and cal tsd> . , ; . ; James Beattie. who said :' William Stavert was a cligqt of the B<mk almost from its start ."in Melgpn, andiad tliirg&^transibtions with it In February Stavert spoke' to* me about the purchase of wheat bp himse f and ,JJftlir ing It "Was agreed t hat I should advance .' £3000 tor the pur clm'e' of tfheatrThe advance • was ; t.o;be pß^theJpigt' account and- ; Canning, the latter"6f whom was to'accept d 'bill for the. amount., The intention was that the wheat Vas to be soldand the advance ; first repaid. I never saw Mr Canning about i it. ■ and I con suited him belpre mak'jfa# i the;R ! pre> ment. Aiterwdrda Stavert proposed to sub^ | stitu^e Mortimer's name for that 'of Cflhhi'ngfi I refused;- but agreed to' take Mortimer's name for . £2000 under a different ai ranger menr. I agreed to advance for the purchase of wheat at 4s <id per bushel, on their lodging with me a joint promissory note /or £2000 I<h Uihta promissory, note better security because I could sue" boiho'u it. 1 Thei whekt was to be stortd deliverable to the Bark, and the first proce ds were to be applied to extiaguiehiug .the advance. . I kuew Mortimer's bank was the Union. On Moniajs and Thursdays aU Bills went before the Hoard. On , the 23rd February the amount of Stavert's overdralt was £4218 J 12s. •'•'•On'- the. 2lßt, it was £4704 18s 4d. The bill of ! exchange produced was discounted on the J 23rd,and the amount went to meet bills ol j Stavtrt's that were maturing. The money ;' went to the ceit of his currfnt account.! Altogether there wsb about £W0 j or £900 paid in < n that day. The limit of bi« j ov rdrafs .depended up m the tecuriiy he j offered. On' the 12th of January it was an i U'lr^erslood thing thit the Unit was t» t o j £3000, but it was exctedtri from time to time! on sptcial securities which were con-| stunt y varying trom day to duv. Oa the! morning ot the 23 rd Februaiy, I first er-okej to Braver t about the bill. He brought it lodiscount, and tod me that wheat had gone) ,up and he did. not mean to. gs> on, .with the! transaction ' 1 put it before'ttVe Board-'aria 1 it; was discounted. I have no recollecion ol Mr Pickering biinging me the bill, or of any' interview w.ith him about it. . ., Stavert told me thatjihe- bill represented money due to him by Mortimer. I did net know what U was owing .for. I did not know that in their, irans&etibnW Stav^rti •w««' lalway'srj the vdebtotj and not Mortimer. There ntver was any! wheat bonftht under the arrangement. On the 12th May, Stavert stopped payment, ar.d on the iOtit f wrote to Mortimer warning hini th«t;l ifiould.lopk to him Jpr,. payment oi the bill. Inrejly I received a /etter fVo'ti Mea ra Adams aud Pitt declining on behal'l or' Morti'i er to pay the «mour t, detsiling the circums anues under which the btH^was ac| ; cepted, and stating that ho bad receivtd no value for it. - . *..{■..-. -.'.." \\ ■■.•'■■ i - i r. : I Re-examined by Mr Pell : On the 23rd February there were other bills brought in. The iot»l amount of discount. for Sjaygr tw«s £568, which mc uded Mortimer's bill. '"" | Charles Canning : In February last I I-ceived"a-proposal lrorh Stavert io go \hio s q, wheat transaction with hiiu. I saw Mr N. Edward', and tol 1 him about it. I said that' I intended going to Christchurch} and probab'y see his partner, Mr Connall, and would most, like y^ b • a lurchaser of wheat to tho ext< nt of £3000. He asked me where 1 was going to get the money. I toll,, him Stavert. was to draw on me, and" that I ' was . to accept bills • to

that I once said in Stavert's hearing I shou'd like to bo a purchaser of whe<t at Lyttelton. : He said, " Wait aminute," and went into the Na ional Bank, and earae back, and said he had ; arranged with the Bank . that they.would advance the money on bi Is drawn by him and accepted by me. The wheat was to be insured, and they were to ho d the policy of insurance and bills of lading. All this I told to Mr Edwards the same day, and he recommended me to have j^othing to dojwith.it, as Stavert's financial ,'pOsiti >n was notary, sound, and that my ■ name would be the one that would be lookr d to. Upon this I dec ined to have anything - i .to;dq..w.ith it. Just after Stavert's failure he congratulated me on" hiving escaped' ruiiv „anrit .said ,1 ought, to shout for him. I reimarke<i that he'had saved^in.e from ruin, arid he replied " Yes, he couH not see an old •acquaintance put. through.'! W. S. Mortimer: lam the defendant. I remember seeing Stavert four or five days before giving ,!thß bill. He said ,he had . entered into a' wheat speculation with Mr fanning, and that it had been withdrawn. Wbuld I join him? Mr Canning had agreed to Invest £3000. I said that was too much forme, and he then proposed £2000. I said I haj not sufficient cash for my sharfe. 'He ■ replied that I would not require any cash, as he; could arrange with the National Bank to take bills. I said I was not soeura about, that, and he replied. " Your name is aa good as Canning's " and undertook to arrange with thp Bank. I saw him on the 23rd February, win; theiinprnitig, afta'he said the Bank had [iiftgbedfto: advance te,f,oOd. op our bills, two of £500 at four months, and. one of .£I,OOO at flvle months, the wlieat to be' [purchased : :fltj once, and held for a rise iri the market, and, as sold, the prone, ds to go towards paying off the bills', the "Sink meanwhile holding a. lien I ; over the wheat. I accented the three bills , and left tlum with Stavert. I never authorised Stavert to discount the bills on pis own account as they were givpn for ihe special j purpose of purchasing wheat. A week later j he told me he bad not purchased, as there had »-een a rise in wheat i We.also fold ttte he hal not used thebi Js. • Stayeyt had been always indebted to "me for- several 'years in.', karlou* amounts,: yaryipg from £500. to JE2IQO. I' have never been nuei for a debt before/ .'".' : Crosß-cxaminel : I signed all three hills on ..the same day. The bill for £1000 was re'urned to me by the clerk in the office about the time of the failure. The oiber for £500 Was discounted by Mr Buckerid^e for Stav<rt. Ijha've hotyetpaidit. [Francis Henry Pickering: I was accountant ap Stavert's last February, having been with him about five mo itbß -. I did mosto.f his, baking business for him. The ueual discbunt d ys were Mondays and Thursdays, when bills hud to be put in; before /twelve. On the 23rd February Mortimer was in the i office an>i before he left the office Stavert pave me an ace ptance of h s for .£6OO, .which hie told me to take to the Barik' f6r<'dis'c6unt. Ij did so I saw Mr Beattie, and be faid "Is Mortimprj sbong?": j I Baid.he waa considered to be a iran of some means 'He then f aid, " Th : s bill is made r»»yabe at the National Bank, and Mr Mortimer banks at t»he Union. . Ifc looks as though. : he di n't mean to pay it." I said, " Perhaps he means i!o chang- his banker," and that was all that gassed between us. ! 'Mr Fell then called, for the ease mire ! p15% | James Beattie, who said : A note of the proposed arrangement with Canning and Stavert is entered on the B ard minute book. Stavert came and sail he would rather Mortimer went in o the transaction instead of Canning. I gave StavH^t a copy of a letter iddresß( d to myself which I told him Mortimer must pjgn b»iore T agreed to the transaction, and witnout that I should not /advance.- the : money. The letter never waa signed, as Btavert told roe that the matter was to stand pver on accotin't 6f ariße tiiat had taken place ja the price nf- wheat. 1i Nathaniel Edwards: I am tbe only local pirector of the NHtional Bank in Nelson. I ■remember the bill in ques ion c ming forjward for discount on the 23rd February* the 1 jßoard Day. I had no idea it had anything to 'do with the wheat transaction. If we had (known what was going on we should noc have :< iscounted the bill. I did not know the bill j'was part of the wheat transaction until after Stavcrtls, failure. j This 'closed the evidence, Cotinßel on both ! aides having addressed the jury, His Honor summed up, and in so doing raid that there could not be a doubt in the mind of anyone that Mortimer's defence was perfectly bonajide, or that he had been the unsuspecting victim of a fraud, but the case j for the defence raust fail unless it was proved that the Bank knew that tbe bill was given, for a specific purpose other than that to which it had beei devoted. The protection of innocent and unsuspecting persons fl gain 6t fraud was certainly important, but protection of the ordinary course of commerce was still more so, and it was not to be expected that rules should be laid down insis ing that par lies, taking negotiable paper should extend' their 'vigilance to the : protects n of tho.-e who neglected to protect themselves. 'I ho question was-,' whether the Bunk, from their prior, transaction with Canning, iiiusfhectssirily have been a ware that tuiß particular bill farmed part of the wheat transact on. Could they e xiracfc Jrom the evidence before them that Mr Beattie and Mr Edwards possessed the knowledge that they were advancing money upon a document lodged wiih Stavert for a paiticu'ar purpose? The, jury, after half «n hour's absence, returned a verdict for the plintift. The Court then adjourned until to-morrow at ten a.m,.when the case of Kny vett v. ; O'Conor will come on for trial. ' 1 ( For remainder of News see fourth page,')