DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2217, 26 April 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMAIIU—THIS DAY. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] The adjourned sitting of the above court took place to-day. civir. casks. The cases Green v. Armitt, claim £137 15s, and Same v. Same, chum £lO4 Us, Mr Jameson for plaintiff, and Mr

Havnersley for defendant, were adjourned till next court day. Miles, Archer and Co. v. D. Maclean —Claim £176.

Mr Perry for plaintiff ; Mr Haincrsley for defendant. This was a claim to recover the above sum on certain dishonored promissory notes.

D. Maclean, of the firm of Maclean and Stewart, was then called and stated that the promissory notes produced had been endorsed by his firm, but that it bad never received the smallest consideration for the endorsement, Thc_y were in payment of property sold on behalf of Mr ' Lane, and were drawn by the purchasers. Understood that the notes were placed with their firm for collection, and they endorsed them in the ordinary way to facilitate their passing through their bank. The notes were given for certain sections sold belonging to Mr Lane. By Mr Perry—Received 1 per cent, commission for selling the sections. The notes were endorsed by mistake. Robert Stewart, the other partner in the firm of Maclean and Stewart deposed to the notes produced being endorsed by his firm. Had never received any consideration for such endorsement.

By Mr Perry—Saw Mr Fraser, manager for Messrs Miles Archer and Go., on the night before the bills became due. Did not remember his saying that Maclean and Stewart would be held responsible on their endorsement.

13. J, Lane stated that the notes produced were received by him from Maclean and Stewart; that firm had not received any consideration for endorsing them. Put the notes into the bank For collection, and subsequently handed them to Mr Fraser ; spoke of the endorsement at the time, and pointed it out to Mr Fraser; told him it was an error.

By Mr Pony—Owed Miles, Archer, and Co. £S'.)O or £*J )0. Put the notes in (ho bank for collection. Owed the bank mono}’, and paid it about the end of June by a cheque of P. Cunningham and Co’s and some bills. Was formerly manager for Cunningham and Co. Never asked Maclean and Slcwart to endorse the notes. Shortly before witness’ bankruptcy he saw Mr Archer, and he agreed to lake IMoO for a debt of £2OO that he reckoned unsecured. Distinctly told Mr Archer at the time that Maclean and Stewart’s endorsement was a mistake, and that he did not want them to suffer. .1. B. Crierson, manager of the Union

Bank, Timarn, deposed that the bills produced, together with others, were lodged in the Bank on December hi, 1878, by Lane ; he wished witness to discount the whole or part of them. To the best of witness’ belief he pointed out that the hills were endorsed by Maclean and Stewart. Discounted live of the bills (not amongst, those produced) ; selected those five because they wore at three months.

F. Archer—Knew B. J. Lane; he owed witness’ firm money; had an interview with him in Dec. He owed about £2lO unsecured, and knowing that he was being pushed witness offered, to make a composition. Offered if he would pay over £l5O to give him a clear bill for the whole amount. Mr Lane made no statement whatever to witness witli reference to the endorsements on the promissory notes. Had been told since that the endorsement was a mistake.

C. F. Fraser, manager for the plaintiffs, stated that the promissory notes got into iiis (inn’s possession by Lane’s handing them in on July 7, in settlement of an account. They were endorsed by Maclean and Stewart. Witness’s (inn had been pressing Lane for a settlement ; ho presently gave them a promissory note for the whole amount, and as collateral security these bills and some Building Society scrip. Ho (old witness he had paid 2.V per cent for getting the bills endorsed but subsequentty ho said he said he had made a mistake in saying he had paid for the endorsement.

By Mr Peny—Would swear at the time Lane handed in the notes he did not tell witness the endorsement was there by mistake. This was all the evidence.

His Honor said the only question to decide was—Was notice given to the plain till’s that the endorsement was a mistake ? The only evidence on that point was that of Lane, winch was contradicted by evidence of Mr Archer and Mr Fraser and collaterally by that of Mr Grierson. Under these circumstances he must give a verdict for the planitill’s, ordinary costs allowed. The Court then adjourned.