POLICE COURT NEWS

Taranaki Daily News, 20 November 1926, Page 23

POLICE COURT NEWS

SITTING AT OPUNAKE PROMISSORY NOTE CLAIM. JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held at Opunake yesterday, Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., presiding. In the following undefended eases, judgment was given for plaintiff by default;—R. W. Dawson v. Tai Ngaia, costs, fl 4s: A. E. Maeks v. Ambrose Fowler, £5 13s 5d (costs £1 10s fid); Egmont County Council v. G. Dobbin, £l2 7s lid ( £4 Is); same v. J. apd W. Mitchell, £l6 Is (costs at scale); same v. Hinepaiatu Mauriri Nuku, £ll 5s 6d (£4 17s); same v. Raurima Rangatiki, £6 4s Id (£2 Os fid); Commissioner of Taxes v. Geo A. Thomas, £2 6s 9d (13s); E. J, Wallis v. R. Carroll, £2 2s 6d (£1 10s 6d); Egmont County Council v. Rokei Ratahi, £35 Is 9d (£4 15s fid); F. Loesch v T. Thompson, £5 17s lid ( £1 19s 6d); J. Turich v. R. Brennan, £25 (£4 Ss 6d); J. S. Church v. G. Jeffries, £ll Is (£3 2s); Egmont County Council v. Kaitapapa, £6 8s (eokts on scale). JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Tn the ease of C. M. Clare v. Richard Carroll, a claim £l4 7s 3d, there being no appearance of judgment debtor, an order was made for the payment of the amount forthwith, in default 14 days’ imprisonment. In the ease of the Egmont County Council v. Rokei Ratahi, a claim for £lB 16s Bd, an order was made for the payment of the amount forthwith, in default IS days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended on payment of £3 per month.

A DISPUTED PROMISSORY NOTE. The court was-occupied nearly all day with the healing of a claim and counterclaim arising from a promissory note, which had been before the court at a previous sitting and had been adjourned before the case for the plaintiff W'as completed. It was a ease in which Hughson’s, Ltd. (Mr. A. A. Bennett), sued John Stackhouse (Mr. C. H. Croker) for £3l 17s o<l, being the balance due on a promissory note signed in September, 1923. Defendant counter-claimed for £4B 5s 4d, being made up of Ngahima’s account ( £2l 9s 4d) and interest at 10 per cent., compounded monthly, £IC 8s sd, as well as various items for cash paid and goods received totalling £7 18s 9d, together with interest £4 Ils 4d. The defence was on the grounds that the promissory note was signed by defendant when he was in such a state of insobriety that it was voidible at law, steps being taken the next day to stop it. They disputed an item of £2l 19s 4d, allegedly wrongly debited from Ngahima’s account. Magnus Hughson, secretary to the company, gave further evidence and also produced books and vouchers relative to a payment of £1 14s lOd in Opunake. He also produced correspondence prior to the signing of the promissory note. In reply to Mr. Crocker, witness stated that there was no possibility of mistake in the books. Mr. Croker then asked how it was that judgment had been given against the firm in a Supreme Court case, etc., for considerable amounts, if there had not been mistakes made in the books. Mr. Bennett pointed out that these judgments dealt with points of law. The magistrate remarked that it was recognised that any book-keeper might make mistakes. Mr. Crocker said if that were so he had gained his point. • That closed plaintiff’s case. H. C. M. Melvor, manager of the Bank of Australasia at Manaia, gave evidence that during the time defendant had banked at his branch he appeared to be financially on an “easy wicket.” The promissory note was endorsed “not to pay,” because the maker, J. Stackhouse, had given written instructions not to pay. He could not remember the circumstances under which the authority was given, but they were not lightly taken.

Cross-examined, witness stated that he could not recollect the reason why, or the date, when instructions were given not to pay. Without the signature book he would not swear that the signature on the promissory note was that of de--fcndant, as it appeared to be stilted. John Stackhouse, farmer, of Oaonui, giving evidence regarding the Ngahina account, stated that on receipt of a summons from Hughson’s, Ltd. in June, 1920, the native asked witness for money to pay the account. It was not convenient for witness to pay the money at the time, so he went with Ngahina to Hughson’s and informed Hughson sen. that he would give Ngahina the money to pay the account in a few days. A few days later witness paid Ngahina £4O with which to pay Hughson’s, Ltd., and another account. The cheque had gone through his pass book. It was not until he instructed his solicitor to inspect Hughson’s books that he knew the amount had been charged against him. Had witness received a detailed account, it would have been paid long ago. The promissory note was stopped because Mrs. Stackhouse and witness realised they had been overcharged, so they went to Manaia fiext morning to stop it. Witness did not realise what he had done, but had spoken about a promissory note in his sleep, so Mrs. Stackhouse asked him next morning to tell her what had been done. When he received the summons in November, 1925, witness took it to Magnus Hughson, saying that it was not right and he was told that it would be looked into. Mrs. Stackhouse, who looked after bis business, went through the books with Magnus Hnghson, Witness admitted that he was “pretty well drunk” when he signed the promissory note. A couple of whiskies would pretty well “knock him over at any time.” They never disputed the store accounts, but knew nothing of Ngaliina’s account. The promissory- note was for over £4O. and witness paid £2O after signing it as he conUdi red that, was the utmost he owed and a Lit more. He had never been in court h fore and would rather pay £2O than be there now. They were constantly arguing about an approximate amount of £2O. and nothing was ever said about iNgahina's account. Until he was summoned witness did not know what, interest he wa. paying, and he had never agreed to pay any particular rate.

Asked for specimen signatures witness stated that “he would make a better fist-if l.e had a few whiskies.” To the magistrate, le said he had not secured a receipt when he settled his

account by paying £2O. That was,.per haps, one of his failings.

Matilda Stackhouse, wife of the defendant, stated that in September, 1923, defendant was brought home drunk by one, Tanner, and rambled all night about signing a promissory note. Next morning witness asked him and he said he had signed a promissory note for over £4O. Witness said “you’re a fool; we don’t owe that amount.” Witness knew they owed in the vicinity of £2O from the figures she kept herself. Even before the promissory note was signed she had had disputes with Magnus Hughson over the accounts as they had never had detailed accorkits given them.

Joseph Henry Tanner, labourer, of Opunake, gave corroborative evidence as to defendant’s condition when he brought him home from Rahotu. Mr. Bennett asked leave to call the manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Rahotu in rebuttal us to the signature.

The magistrate said that it had not been proved that the signature was that of a man unable to realise the sense of what he was doing. In giving judgment, he said that he did uot see how the defence could be sustained. Defendant was evidently an impulsive man, who had a wife who tried her best to restrain him. He signed the document in her absence, a thing he might not have done under better guidance. A promissory note was a solemn document. He had paid £2O and had not obtained a receipt—a failing, as lie admitted, due to carelessness. If people were careless they must he prepared to pay. Mr. Crocker said that if a man signed under misapprehension of fact he was entitled to relief. If the court believed that he had not been notified that the £2l 19s 4d had been included in the promissory note, he was entitled to relief on the ground of mistake. The magistrate said that defendant, instead of facing the matter long ago, had allowed it to drift on. tearing up his accounts. It would be a serious thing for him to believe that .plaintiffs had “jockeyed” him into signing the promssory note. He therefore did not think the defence could holdjudgment was given for plaintiff for the full amount, with costs £8 9s. A DEFENDED CASE. W. W. Vickery (Mr. C. 0. Edmonds) sued Mnnga Bishop (Mr. P. M. Brooker) for £7 19s, being a disputed claim over a contract to supply posts. The case was entered as a defended case, but defendant was not present, so judgment aas given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £3 IBs.