DISHONOURED P.N.

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 832, 28 November 1929, Page 11

DISHONOURED P.N.

PRESENT HOLDER SEEKS PAYMENT DEFENDANT CHARGES SOLICITORS ‘‘lf it can be established that plaintiff is the holder in due course of a promissory note within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act. any defect in title as between the maker and payee of the note cannot enter into the matter," declared Mr. Uogerson in the Supreme Court today, when Edward Joseph Flood, of Sydney, sued J<imes Ernest Gear, of Auckland, for £ 775 and interest to date under a promissory note. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Smith. Flood claimed to be the holder in due course of a promissory note for £775 made by Gear to John McLaughlin and Sons, solicitors, of Sydney, due on May 23. 3 923. tie alleged that McLaughlin and Son had endorsed the note to V. A. Wawn, but it was subsequently dishonoured and was still unpaid. The defence was a denial of making the note, or alternatively, that if the note was made, McLaughlin and Son had obtained it by duress or undue influence while acting as defendant’s solicitors. While in Sydney for health reasons in 1923, defendant alleged that he became intimately acquainted with John McLaughlin, a solicitor, who represented 'that a Wellington solicitor was mishandling defendant’s affairs, and was conspiring to deprive him (Gear) of the control of his business. Finally defendant declared he came to believe these representations and was induced to take his affairs out of the control of the Wellington firm, and to place them in McLaughlin’s hands. When McLaughlin was about to sail with defendant for New Zealand, the former pleaded he was unable to leave because he was temporarily financially embarrassed, and defendant alleged he was induced to give McLaughlin two promissory notes on the understanding

that, the notes should not be negotiated or dealt with. The defendant claimed that Flood was aware the note was overdue ami had been dishonoured and that he had not taken it in good faith nor had given value for it. The evidence of the plaintiff was heard in Sydney and was tendered on commission. Mr. Rogerson. for the plaintiff, claimed to be the holder in due course of the note, for which he had given value, and was not aware of any defect in title. Not a tittle of evidence had been adduced to disprove that Flood was not a perfectly innocent party, said counsel. There were suggestions and innuendoes against him. but these paled to insignificance beside the complicated swindle on which tho defence had to rely. To succeed, the defence would have to prove that Flood had concocted and executed the clearest fraud and that four witnesses in Sydney had committed the grossest perjury. (Proceeding.)