FINE BANKING POINT.

Shannon News, 31 August 1923, Page 3

FINE BANKING POINT.

NATIONAL BANK v. JOHN GOLDER

MAGISTRATE’S RESERVED DECISION. At the Foxton S.M. Court on the ‘2oth June last, the National Bank of New Zealand, Ltd., proceeded against John Golder, of Foxton, jeweller, for recovery of the sum of £24 6s 9d, the amount of a. cheque issued, by the defendant to “Joe Avery’’ and crossed “Bank.” Before Avery had. paid the cheque into his account with the plaintiff,, the defendant telegraphed Avery that he had stopped payment. The cheque was payable to “Joe Avery” or order and was endorsed “J. J. Avery” when paid into Avery’s credit in the plaintiff bank. The cheque was returned by defendant’s bankers at Foxton marked “Payment stopped, endorsement irregular.” The plaintiff bank then got in touch with Avery, and had the cheque again endorsed “Joe Avery” and presented if to defendant’s bankers who again returned it “payment stopped.” In the meantime the plaintiff had advanced Avery £l9 10s 9d against the cheque. Legal argument as previously reported was addressed by Mr Cooke for plaintiff and Mr Be'rgin for defendant. The S.M. reserved his decision which was: now delivered as follows.-

“In.this action the plaintiff is sueing the defendant on a dishonoured cheque-payment of which was stopped on presentation after the Bank had as they were entitled to do ;see 2 Halsbury, p. 498, c. 845, and McLean v. Clvdsdale Bank 9 A.C. 99) made advances against it to their customer to the extent of £l9. The actual amount owing to the Bank is £l9 10s 9d. In my opinion the bank were holders Tor value and as such entitled to sue upon, the cheque after its dishonour on presentation. It is sugt gesled that because the first endorsement on the cheque was irregular that Ihe Bank’s claim must fail but defendant! admitted that- Joe Avery is .T. .T. Avery and that the endorsements were in the handwriting of Joe Avery, and the case of Leonard v. Wilson 3 L.J. Ex. 171 shows that an irregular endorsement can be cured and the- cheque re-presented. “Judgment will be for the plaintiff for £l9 10s 9d and costs £7 17s.