LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8292, 26 June 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT. —Civil Sittings. Wednesday. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Cooolty.] National Bank v. L. M. Grace.Judgment was given in this case, beard at a previous sitting of the Court. In this action the bank claimed £48 6s 5d as interest on money lent. The defendant had two accounts, one at Wellington and another at Tauranga, both with the National Bank. He overdrew his account at Wellington, although he was in credit at Tauranga, and the bank charged him interest on the account overdrawn at Wellington. The defendant contended that the bank had no right to charge him interest on the overdraft account at Wellington while he was in credit at Tauranga. His Honor, in giving judgment, said that in this case the questions submitted for the opinion of the Court were :First, had the plaintiff bank a right to charge interest on a debit balance due by the defendant at one branch of the bank, while the defendant had a credit balance at another branch ? and, second, was it incumbent upon the plaintiff bank to blend the two accounts before bringing any action, correcting the amount which had been from time to time charged as interest on the overdrawn account by reference to the account which had been at the same time in credit ? In regard to the first question, ho held that the bank was justified in charging the interest. It could not be assumed that the bank officials at the one branch were awaro that the defendant had an account at another branch, still less that they were aware of the state of the account from day to day. The defendant must be supposed to have known the state of his account with each branch, and by allowing the one to remain overdrawn, tacitly consented to interest being charged upon it. On the second question he had felt some doubt whether, when tho transactions ceased to be between the defendant and the several branches of the bank, and became one, in which the bank, as an entirety, sued the defendant tor the balance alleged to be due from him, it did not become incumbent on the bank to recast the accounts between the defendant and the several branches, correcting the amount which had, from time to time been charged as interest on the overdrawn account by reference to the account which had been at tho same time in credit. But, on further consideration, he was of opinion that the bank is entitled to take the two accounts as they stood on the day when action was commenced, treating them up to that date as separate accounts, but deducting the amount of credit on the one account on that day from the debit balance on the other at the same date. To hold that the bank must recast both accounts by correcting the balance between them from day to day during the whole time they had been open would be unreasonable where accounts had been running for a long series of years ; and the principle is tho same when they had not been of long duration. The keeping of. accounts at the two branches was for the defendant's accommodation, and he might have reduced the amount of his overdraft I at the one branch, or. extinguished it, by transferring to it his credit balance at the other branch. The answer to the first question would be in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. Mr. Hesketh said that the parties would meet and arrange for what amount judgment should pass. In' Banco. An Appeal Cask.—Mr. Cooper said a notice had been tiled of appeal from the decision of the Warden of the Puhipuhi Mining District, Aldred appellant, and Collins respondent. Notice had been filed on the 7th Juno, but no other papers had been lodged. He appeared for the respondent. Mr. Hesketh said the parties were endeavouring to come to a settlement. The case was adjourned until Wednesday. Hkathek V. i'AORANOA AND KATIKATI Building and Investment Societv.—Mr. Hesketh asked that this case, which had boen partly hoard, should be further adjourned till Wednesday next. The application was granted.

POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before Dr. Giles, K.M.] Drunkenness.—One first offender was fined 5s and costs, or, in default, twentyfour hours'. Faiiuke to Deface a Stamp.—Andrew Fernandez appeared to answer the charge of extracting beer from a cask without having defaced tho stamp. Mr. Baumo appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Hudson Williamson for the prosecution. Mr. .Inckman, Customs officer, stated that he drew Mr. Fernandez's attention to the fact that the stamp was not properly defaced by driving the tap through it. The stamp had been torn, and the tap driven between tho torn parts. Constable Lamb deposed ; that he accompanied Mr. Jackman to the Britomart Hotel, and the defendant, after being informed by Mr. Jackman who he was, obstructed their entrance to the | collar, but on Mr. Hill interfering ho allowed them to go in, and ho accompanied them. Witness then described the appearance of the stamp. In reply to Mr. Baume, tho witness suid that Mr. Fernandez objected to Mr. Jackman going into the cellar unless he showed his authority. I There seemed to be some old grievance between them., but as soon as Mr. Hill came ho withdrew his objection. Mr. Baume pleaded that the stamp had been torn accidentally owing to its having become damp. His Worship said he could not hold that the stamp was properly defaced as provided by the Act. It may have been unintentional, but it was the duty of the defendant to sec that it was properly defaced. He imposed a line of £5 and costs. Breach ok the Beer Duty Act.— Donald Norman Watson, and Benjamin Moore Murray, were charged with a breach of this Act, under tho following heads : — (1) For making a false entry in the book kept by them under the provisions of the Act, on the 15th day of April last; (2) for neglecting to enter the estimated quantity of beer produced at their brewery on the 14th April last ; (3) for neglecting to affix a stamp to a cask. Mr. Cotter appeared for the defendants, and Mr. Hudson Williamson prosecuted. Mr. Cotter pleaded guilty to the first charge. According to the Act defendants were required to enter the estimated quantity of material in their brewery daily. They had no clerk, and no doubt in the hurry of business some errors had crept in. Ho advised the defendants to plead guilty. The penalty prodded by the Act was very severe, and he would ask His Worship under the circumstances, that the lowest penalty allowed by the Act might bo imposed. Mr. Hudson Williamson said there were four distinct offences laid against the defendants, but one had been withdrawn. There was nothing to show that there was any intention to defraud on tlio part of the defendants. Mr. Cotter pleaded guilty to the two other charges, and asked His Worship to impose the minimum penalty in each case. Mr. Williamson said he would not ask Ilis Worship to inflict a heavy or vindictive penalty. His Worship said the Customs department did not ask for more than the minimum penalty, and he thought it sufficient. In the two first cases the line would be £50 for each and £20 in the third case. The penalty included the forfeiture of the plant. Mr. Williamson asked that costs might bo allowed. He said although the penalty of forfeiture followed the conviction it was never enforced, and no doubt the Governor would be advised to remit it. The costs amounted to £(i 18s.