THE DOCTOR'S CHEQUES

NZ Truth, Issue 1184, 9 August 1928, Page 2

THE DOCTOR'S CHEQUES

And Why They Were Dishonored By Bank of N.Z.

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) Not often do medical men make their appearance m the courts as litigants, but Dr. Morice Grevllle, who has been practising m the Winterless North at Ruawai, Paparoa and Dargaoille, it would seem,, under difficulties not uncommon to his profession, recently brought two actions for damages which he felt he had suffered at the hands of the Bank of New Zealand.

•THE medico asked judgment on two 1 claims, each of £260, for damages on the grounds that lie had several of his cheques dishonored. Mr. Justice McGregor, after much legal argument as to whether there was any precedent for a medical man claiming to have 'had his interests damaged by such action on the part of the bank, a medical man not "being considered to be a man of business m the strict sense of the term, finally awarded the young doctor the sum which the bank had paid into court, £55, to meet the case. On the other hand', his honor allowed the bank £10/10/- costs and other disbursements. Practically all the doctor obtained out of "his case was a moral victory.. Lawyer Greville handled the plaintiff's case and Lawyer Richmond contested the claim on behalf of the bank. The evidence of the doctor went to show that when he ' . ' was at Paparoa he arranged for an j overdraft . with the Bank of New Zealand there to the ■ extent of £289. This was m April, 1927, Unit about two months later a cheque of his for £65 was dishonored. 'Other cheques were dishonored about this period and plaintiff contended that he had money to meet them without m any way exceeding his overdraft. However, the account with the bank, which had. been commenced m October, 1924, at Ruawai, was not his only, one as time went on, for by 1927 he had opened accounts at the other centres around which he practised. In fact, it was very evident that the. young medico was not having too merry a time. As he stated m his evidence he was earning about £1000 a year — but he was not getting it. As time went on, it would appear that both bank manager and doctor began to feel the strain of the financial situation, until finally the bank wrote to him' a polite intimation that

Greville's Account

only for cheques to draw against it. There was no special agreement. But, declared Dr. GrevUle, the manager appropriated It, though to do so was a breach of agreement. He added that when paying m he became suspicious eventually, more so when his cheque for £65 was^dishonored; he "lost faith m Mr. Norton." The doctor said he knew there was enough to meet the cheque for £65, which he was told to re-present. He replied "Yes," to defendant's lawyer when asked If he did not know there were cheques outstanding to the sum of £101. "You were careless whether the bank had to dishonor some of those cheques or not?"— " Yes." "How did you expect him to honor them?"— -"He'd done It before." Not everyone had known about the :- dishonoring of the two cheques, continued plaintiff m answer to other questions. He thought the fact that they had been dishonored had done him £500 worth of harm." "In December, 1926," asked Lawyer Richmond, "you were owing money to tradesmen all over Ruawai?"— 'None of them caused proceedings to be "You owed Stansfield, the storekeeper, the best part of £50?"— " Yes. "Do you say these people are not creditors to-day?" The doctor's answer was that he naa made arrangements for them to collect money owed him by a Maori. . Still pressed as to his liabilities, plaintiff admitted that he had not then paid Shepherd, the baker, but he— with the others— knew he would get his money. . , . Plaintiff was now making a certain sum per annum, whereas before he had not been receiving what he earned. "The people of Ruawai owe me over £1000," stated Dr. Greville, "and they are m the same way." His honor asked: "Your income was