SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 161, 19 June 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Judge Gillies.) YESTERDAY. Donoghue v. Nevin. Mr. Rees for plaintiff, and Mr. McDougal for defendant. This was a claim for £259 14s. for wages due, and £8 17s. 6d. money lent. Mr. Rees explained the facts on which the claim was grounded, which were briefly these; On the 2nd March, 1880, plaintiff entered the defendant’s service, remaining in it until June 16th, 1883. The wages had been agreed to be 255. per week. The defence whilst admitting the date, alleged that on the 28th of June, 1880, fresh arrangements were made by which, from that date, plaintiff was to receive 15s. per week, and that the plaintiff had received cash, and goods, for his services—the whole amount due having been paid. Plaintiff had given credit for £BO, for moneys received, and now sued for the balance. Judgment for £l2O with costs. THIS DAY.—CIVIL BUSINESS, T. McFarlane v. Kinross & Graham. This was a claim for £1,760, being an amount alleged to be due on certain dishonored promissory notes, together with an additional claim for interest. Mr. Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. McLean for the defendants. The following special jurymen were empannelled Messrs. Sherratt, A. 0. Arthur, C. P. Browne, J. Bpurke, G„ Stevenson, G. Smith, C. D. Pitt<W. P. Finneran, Valpy, M. Smith, and Butt. The facts elicited were that the case arose out of the sale of the old brewery in Lowe Street, purchased by Mr. W. F. Crawford from Messrs. Whitson & Co., of Auckland, (of which firm Mr. Geo. Johnston was a partner). The terms were, £l,OOO cash, a mortgage of £2,000 and the remainder on bills endorsed by Kinross & Graham. The firm of Whitson & Co., disolved partnership on July Ist, 1879, and the affairs of the firm were placed in Mr. Thomas Macfarlane’s hands as liquidator. The bills given were endorsed to Mr. Macfarlane.

Mr. Johnstone gave evidence containing in substance the foregoing statement. Mr. Croft, (formerly of the Bank of New Zealand), and Mr. Oxley the present accountant, proved the dishonor of the P/N for £1,768, and its presentment to the endorsers after such dishonor. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. Mr. McLean argued that a proper notice of dishonor had been made as required by law to the endorsers—the notices being merely a verbal one.

His Honor considered that sufficient of notice had been given, and that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury. After Mr. McLean had briefly addressed the jury, Mr. A. Graham, one of the defendants, gave evidence as to the arrangement between Mr. Crawford and the defendants for the mutual benefit of all, and but for which the promissory notes would not have been endorsed—one for £702 and the other for £1,769. He denied having received notice of the dishonor of the promissory notes either verbally or in writing. The dishonored promissory note was a renewal. He had received no information whatever from his clerks as to the plantation of the promissory notes. D. M. Orr, who had been in Graham and Co.’s employ throughout August, 1880 (the date of the dishonor) asserted that notice of the promissory note for £1,786 had never been given to him.

C. P. Davis gave evidence of a similar nature, and totally opposed to the statements made by Messrs. Croft and Oxley, the former of whom distinctly swore that he gave notice of the dishonor to Mr. Davis. W. A. O’Meara gave similar evidence.

W. F. Crawford in evidence saith, he was the maker of the P/N, the subject of the present action. The first P/N mentioned in the agreement was paid, the second one was half renewed, and the third, the present one was renewed for two years. He had not informed Graham & Kinross, that he would be unable to meet the P/N when it became due. This closed the defendants’ case.

Mr. McLean then addressed the jury. In doing so, he pointed out the reliance placed on the agreement, to renew given in the agreement. Left Sitting.