McCLGGAGE v MONTEFORE

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 89, 17 April 1915, Page 2

McCLGGAGE v MONTEFORE

At the Magistrate’* Court, Stratford, on Friday, before Mr W. G. Ken rick, S.M., Joseph McCluggage sued James C. Montefore for the sura of £l9, alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to P. G. Brooking on the request of the defendant. Mr P. Thomson, acting under instructions from Mr W. G. Malone, ap- , pea red for the plaintiff, and Mr R. Spence tor the defendant. Joseph McCluggage (defendant) said that he was miked by Brooking !in 1912 to see the defendant and ask 'him for a cheque. He saw the dei fondant on the Stratford Railway Station, and he promised to pay the cheque at once. About the middle of January, 1913, witness again saw defendant, who said he was ashamec about the cheque, and asked witness to give him a cheque for £l9- Witness paid this cheque to Brooking, am on seeing defendant afterwards, told him that he had clone so. He had since seen defendant, who had always promised to pay the amount of the cheque. Receiving no reply to lettei s in connection 'with the amount, witness instructed his solicitor to take. action. , By Mr Spence: W itne-ss ledgei would not show the transaction, it beitm purely a friendly one. He pan the cheque to Brooking. He did not 'think he marked the .butt of Ins che-que-book in connection with the cheque. Defendant never disputed the claim. Witness did not think it was his duty to get a receipt for the full amount from Brooking. His Worship here said that he did not see why the case had come to Court. The defendant either owed money to plaintiff of Brooking. Mr Spence: I think this is a case where the wrong plaintiff is in Court. Percy George Brooking said he did certain work for defendant in f° which defendant owed him about £2O, and defendant promised to send a cheque. The last time be saw defendant was in Stratford. Witness sawplaintiff and told him he was short of cash, upon which plaintiff said he I would give witness a cheque for £3O, at the same time saying that he would .rive witness the £2O owing by defendant, and lending him £lO. By Mr Spence: He did not go to plaintiff to borrow money. James Montefore, whose evidence was taken at Te Awamutu, said that he saw Brooking and spoke to him about the money owing. Witness saw plaintiff at Hawera, and plaintiff suggested that if witness owed anything to Brooking he had better hand it to plaintiff. He did not think he had any conversation at the Stratford iailway station with plaintiff. Brooking had never rendered him an account of what witness owed him, and witness, would not pay plaintiff without further authority from Brooking. Witness did not know until he received the summons that plaintiff had paid Brook ing £2O. He never acknowledged the sum of £2O as being paid on his account to Brooking.

Mr Spence contended that there must be a distinct request by the defendant in order to attribute the liability to defendant. No man could become another person’s creditor by paying that person’s debts. He pointed out that there were many contradictions in the evidence. The evidence should be absolutely irrefutable. Mr Thomson; Said that the plaintiff had not taken the usual business precautions because the transaction was a purely friendly one. While defendant was not prepared to deny seeing plaintiff on the railway station, the defendant swore to it.

His Worship, in giving judgment for plaintiff for £l9 with 1 £4 8s Gd costs, said that, both parties were unbusinesslike in carrying out the transaction. The weight of evidence was in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant denied that Brooking was paid j but he must have had some knowledge. It was a matter of memory.