MARK, THE MYSTERY MAN

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

MARK, THE MYSTERY MAN

\l "THE mystery man of the All] ii * Blacks' tour to me is Mark I i| Nicholls," writes If "N.Z. Truth's" II special South || Afrioan corresii p o n d c n t. I! "Rightly or li wrongly, I have , If a feeling that || this grand b.ack ii is not fully ap|i preciated by the |l tourists' selecII tion committee II — and I make II this remark for |l what it is worth it and without sure' If foundation for || t^e statement. ii "In the losing ii ma teh 68 at || Capetown and §1; Johannes b ur g, l| ■ Nicholls, m my || estimation, if stood out as the li one player m %% the side, who li might have roll versed the iaII sue, as m both |1 games, with the jji forwards badly il beaten, he initiated dangerous H movements which, for a time, iniiiiiiiiiniDiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiimiiiniiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiniimiiiuiiiuimiiiiiiiimiiiniiiiiumiimmiiiiiinii ?iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiUiiiuuiiHiiiiiiiitiuniiimiiiimiii!iniimiiiiiiiuiuHiiimiiiiuiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiii

the state of his account did not allow them to meet any more of "his cheques. At Dargaville, Dr. Greville opened his account" on an understanding that a life policy of £1000 should be the security against a certain amount of overdraft.' This, however, alfo fell through; it would seem that the head office would not sanction the arrangement. It was while the position was m this unhappy state that several more of the doctor's cheques were turned down by the bank. At last he decided to take action. The doctor made it very clear that he felt he had suffered no little moral damage m the community. One matter certainly annoyed him considerably. When he found that the Dargaville branch would not consent to. an overdraft, on instructions from Wellington, he asked for the return of his life insurance policy, to be told to write to Wellington for it. Lawyer Richmond handled the doctor without any reservations, when, after recounting certain points , of defendant's case, he cross-examined plaintiff. Dr. Greville admitted that from March, 1926, Norton, the manager at I^aparoa, had persistently urged him to get his overdraft down and he had promised aa constantly to do so. At last, tie had to get the assistance of his father-in-law over his hospital account. "Did you try to get your overdraft down?" asked Lawyer Richmond. "No," was the answer. And the doctor went on to admit that he still drew on the bank for further amounts. He was not able to ' deny that— rather than getting his account downhe had increased his indebtedness from £178 to' £244; also, that Norton had been very patient with him. "Didn't the bank write to say that they were protecting your good name instead of dishonoring your cheques?" inquired Lawyer Richmond. ','Yes," was the reply. "And then they refused to honor any more?" — "Yes." "You having made no attempt to follow their instructions?" persisted counsel for. the defence.' "No," answered plaintiff.. . . Lawyer Richmond indicated the position m November, . 1926. House account overdrawn, £480; No. 2 account, £200; Ruawai private hospital account, £299 (guarantee being £300); doctor's own account, £1.35. Plaintiff admitted that this was correct. There had been no fixed limit to overdraft during 1928. "By December, 1926, your ordinary account stood at £244 overdrawn; all the others were stationary ?" asked counsel. "Yes," was the answer.. , "From December, 1926, to April 1927," continued Lawyer Richmond, "the bank dishonored two cheques and eight p.ri.'s? One cheque drawn m favor of Smith and one m favor of Dr. Greville?" This was admitted. "And during that time you paid nothing into your account?— " No." It was shown that the doctor had lodged £100- in the bank m June; he was not able to say that it had beer earmarked v for anything particular.

gave every indication of success. || "He was left out of the see- f ond Transvaal 1 match, 'a slight- I ly bruised foot | which would | have affected his | kicking' being | the cause, I was | told; yet four | days later he i played against § Western Trans- | vaal, taking up || the position of i| first five-eighths, || and, by most of || the critics, was I named as the 1 outstanding I back on the § field. | "I can well | conceive that || Mark was nam- || ed the 'brains of If the All Blacks' f during the last § British tour, yet, § as I write, I i should not be || surprised were || he left out of !| the first Test U team. It really does provide || food for thought." fl iiimniintnitiiniiiiiMmiiniriimmniininumiiiunrnHiiiHiiiiiiiHiiiiriiniiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini iiiiiiuiiitliiuiKiiiiilliliiliiiiiiiliiiiiliniiiiliinttiiiiiiiiliilmiiliiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiilHi:iiiiiiiiiiiinutiiiiiiiiii.^

smaller than you earned?" "Yes," said the doctor. "In March, 1928, your account waa overdrawn £1300; these are- the amounts for which we have obtained judgment," continued Lawyer Richmond. — "Yes," It was further shown under crossexamination that Dr. Greville had issued his writs subsequent to the action by the bank. "The bank acted first; a week before?"—" Yes." "Judgment was confessed m aIJ cases?" — "Yes." "Who paid?" — "The guarantors." Plaintiff further admitted that he had paid £10 a. month, but nothing since the writs were issued. Also, he said his action was m course of preparation" before the writs were is- j sued against him. "You didn't think fit to bring an action until the negotiations with the bank were broken off?" asked Lawyer Richmond. Plaintiff denied that such was the case. i The defence contented itself with saying through its legal mouthpiece that it did not admit plaintiff's reputation had suffered and no evidence of damage had been given. Every consideration had been shown the doctor, but the bank was prepared to admit that if it had made a mistake it would give reasonable compensation. Neither of the bank managers' > ! was called, but judge and counsel for some time gave consideration as to whether there was a precedent by which a medical man could be awarded damages. Many weighty legal tomes were consulted and cases quoted. , Eventually his honor decided there was reasonable ground on which to give plaintiff the verdict, with the conclusion as stated above. |

Manager's Request

id To Order