SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5096, 24 July 1877, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIV I L SITTINGS. Monday, July 23.

(Before his Honor, Mr. 1 Justice Richmond.)

C. J. AND A. C. HARRISON V. PALMER.

The hearing of this' case was resumed from the previous Friday, Mr. Travers and Mr. .Chapman appealing for plaintiffs, and Mr. McCormick and Mr. G. Harper for defendant. Mr. Joseph Palmer, the chief, officer in the colony of the Union Bank, and, the defendant in the action, deposed that he was not personally -acquainted with' the" plaintiffs. In March, -1876) witness went to Gisborne for the purpose of inspecting the branch of the bank.; Witness examined the ■ state of Messrs. Harrison s ac'count. The bank at that time held, as secu- - rjty for advances made to , Messrs. Harrison, amounting to £ISOO, certain pur- - porting to be leases. Witness was not satisfied 'with the security, and through Mr, "Von Da-, ’delzen, the local manager, the firm was communicated with, to make the security as good as it originally purported to be when the appli-; -cation for the loan' was first made. Witnesswas unable to have a personal interview with Messrs. Harrison, as the steamer was leaving - Gisborne almost immediately, and he had to I come away by her. Witness declined by letter to renew Messrs. Harrison's hills, unless they withdrew the action with which they threatened the bank. : , Mr. C. J. Harrison , was, recalled, and in reply to Mr. Harper stated that in December, 1875, the firm obtained an advance of £ISOO from the Union Bank, fpr the purpose of buying out a retiring partner, Mr. Matthewaon. £7OO was paid down, and bills given for the balance. : The £ISOO was expended on the run, and when Mr. Matthewson’s first bill became .due witness was unable to meet it. It was presented at the Bank of New Zealand, and dishonored. Witness had not transferred the amount from the Union Bank to meet it—£Boo. The second bill was dishonored through a mistake. Arrangements had been made to meet it, but the money was forwarded to the wrong bank. ’Ey Mr. Travers: Repeated applications were made by witness to the Union Bank for further advances to be made, in the terms of the original agreement; but the bank positively declined to go beyond the £ISOO. Theoriginal agreement was that the bank was to.advance £3OOO.

' Mr. McCormick submitted that plaintiffs had failed to prove the contract set forth in the declaration, and should be nonsuited, or a verdict entered for. the defendant. .

TP* Honor was of opinion the variance was amendable, and that there, was a case to go to the jury. He would, however, reserve the points raised by Mr, McCormick, Mr. McCormick then addressed the Court and jury for the defence, arguing’ that plain* tiffs" had. altogether ailed to prove their, case, and were not entitled' to any damages, either general or special. Mr. Travers, for the plaintiffs, contended that his clients were entitled to a verdict, with substantial damages. - His j Honor summed up, and the jury, at twenty minutes to five o’clock, retired to consider their verdict.

At five o’clock they returned into Court with a verdict on the issues as follows : 1. At the time of the making of the alleged agreement in the declaration mentioned did the company called the Union Hank of Australia in the declaration mentioned carry on business as bankers at Gisborne as therein alleged t —Yes. 2. Was Otto Daniel Von Dadelzen at the time aforesaid the local manager of the said company at Gisborne aforesaid ?—Yes. 3. Were the plaintiffs at the time aforesaid customers of the said company as in the declaration alleged ?—Yes. , ;; . 4. Did the said Otto Daniel Von Dadelzen as local manager of the said company as aforesaid contract with the plaintiffs as in the declaration alleged ?—Yes. 5. Was the said Otto Daniel Von Dadelzen authorised by the said company to make the said contract :—Yes.

• 6. Did the said company refuse to perform the said contract as in the declaration alleged! —Yes.

7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to recover from the defendant any and if so what sum for damages by reason of the cause of action in the declaration set forth ? —£6oo. 8. Was it a condition of the said contract that the plaintiffs should give security to the said bank on specific property for the sums to be paid on discount of the bills in the declaration mentioned?—Yes.

Did the plaintiffs give such security ?—Yes. This amounted to a general verdict for plaintiffs. The Court then adjourned until August 27.