COMPLICATED APPEAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 165, 3 October 1927, Page 9

COMPLICATED APPEAL

PROMISS/kRY NOTES INVOLVED ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY Press Association. WELLINGTON, To-day. The Court of Appeal, presided over bv Justices Sim, Herdman, Reed and Adams, was engaged this morning in hearing the appeal of William Douglas Lysnar against Dorothy Valentine Burnard, wife of Leonard Thomas Burnard, of Gisborne, solicitor. In March, 1927, respondent claimed against appellant and his brother the sum of £3,461 13s Jd and interest, alleged to be the balance due by them upon an instrument by way of security over chattels of which respondent is registered as transferee from the original grantee. The facts are that a firm named Bennett and Sherratt supplied goods to G. H. Lysnar upon his promissory no Lea, endorsed by W. D. Lysnar. W. D. Lysnar received no value for his endorsements, but was purely an accommodation party to the notes, and this was known to C. H. Bennett, a member of the firm who, upon subsequent dissolution of the firm, bee me the holder in due course, of the notes. On October 26, 1923, the notes being overdue, Bennett commenced two actions in the Supreme Court against both defendants, claiming th€> moneys due under these notes. Bennett’s solicitors were Messrs. Burnard and Bull—Burnard being the husband of plaintiff. These actions ; newer came to trial, but were compromised by defendants joining in executing a bill-of-sale over certain chattels owned by W. D. Lysnar to secure a sum of £5,280 with interest to Bennett. Numerous complicated transactions subsequently took place, with the result that in December, 1926, the amount f claimed was alleged to be due on the day before the hearing. ! G. H. Lysnar confessed judgment of £3,335 13s 9d with interest, but appellant defended on the ground that he was, to the knowledge of respondent, a surety only, and that as time to pay had been given to his brother, and the contract materially varied v.ithout appellant's consent, he was thereby discharged from any liability under it. Justice Ostler heard the action and gave judgment in favour of Mrs. Burnard against both defendants for the full amount claimed. The appeal is , against this judgment- __, _