IMPORTANT BILL CASE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 228, 13 June 1872, Page 6

IMPORTANT BILL CASE.

The following waß heard before Mr Strode, R.M., at Dunedin, on the 6th inst.

Bank of Otago v. Gregg. — L 134, for principal and interest on a bill of exchange. The excess over LI 00 was abandoned to bring the amount within the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr James Smith for the plaintiff ; Mr Mouat for the defendant. — For the defence it; was .' 1 eged that, since accept ance, the bill had been altered. — G. H. Campbell said the bill was for L 133 -14s 3d, payable nine months after date. The bill was discounted at the Bank of Otago. Tho writing in the body of the bill waß in two different hands. The signature Calvert and Campbell and the word " nine," were in his hand- writing, and the remainder by his clerk. There was a date to the bill prior to its acceptance, but there was no drawer's name, nor was it made payable at any particular bank. Both those particulars were afterwards added. On the bill being dishonored he requested the Bank to sue for the amount, which they did a3 holders of the bill. Mr Gregg, at the time of the bill being accepted did not know where to make it payable, as he was about to change his account from the Bank of New Zealand, and by his instructions it was made payable at the Bank of Otago. — McCleod, clerk with Messrs Calverb and Campbell, confirmed Mr Campbell's evidence. At the time of acceptance the signature of the drawer was a. blank but the biil was dated — Mr Mauat objeoted that the additions made to the bill after acceptance made it a new bill and necessitated a new stamp. He cited, in support of his views, a decision by Lord Ellenborough, in which an alteration had been made in the date after being twenty days in acceptor's possession. On that ground, it was decided that the bill was inadmissible as evidence. In reply, Mr Smith held that as the bill as it now appeared was only in the condition that it was origina'ly intended to be, therefore no new stamp was necessary. Several cases were cited in support of this view. If a new stamp were needed, it was when words were inserted altering the original oontract ; but as the words added were only in completion of it, it was plain they did not invalidate the bill. His Worship said that, judging from evidence before him, the bill was no more than originally intended, judging by the evidence of Mr Campbell, and therefore there was a case to answer. — William Gregg first saw the bill on the Ist July, 1871. With the exception of the word nine months and the figures (which seemed to have been altered, and of which he was uncertain), the bill was a blank. There was also bis signature aooeptoi'. The date was not there. The completion of the bill was deferred, subject to a future arrangement with Mr Campbell. He (defendant) was to fix a place of payment and a date to suit himself. He made a memorandum of the transaction at the time. He never gave directions on those two points. Since that time he had'never had any conversation with Campbell about the bill, and had no knowledge further about it until he received notice of its dishonor. The insertion of the place of payment was not by bis directions, and he never intended the Bank of Otago should be the place of payment, as he bad no bank when he gave the bill. In cross-examina-tion, he considered that Mr Campbell and Mr M'Cleod were mistaken in saying the bill was filled np with the exception of terms of payment. He swore the words were in the bill in an affidavit before the Supreme Court, and he considered the affidavit right. He opened an account with the Bank of Otago, July Bfch, the day after the bill bore date. He purposed making the bill payable at his office, as he did not wish the transaction te appear in his current account. He did not tell Mr Campbell so. He d'd not iuforni Mr Campbell he had opened an account with the BankofOtago, and didjnot say so positively at first, because he wished to refresh his memory, although he did not now doubt it. Mr Smith called Mr Mitchell, as an expert, to give evidence as to whether the two lines of writing in the bill were written at the same or different time. In bis judgment they were written at the same time. His Worship said the denial of Gregg was so express of having given directions to Campbell to insert the words " Bank of Otago," he must give judgment for the defendant.

Aplin v. Flexman. — LIOO. This was a claim for work and labor done. Mr Stout for the plaintiff; Mr Shapter for the defendant. The action was brought to recover an amount alleged to be due to tbe plaintiff under an agreement under which he contracted to impart to the defendant a knowledge of certain improvements in tanning leather.

The Adelaide Assembly has expressed an opiniou that a small tax should be imposed upon sheep coming into the Colony from New South Wales.

Telegrams from Brisbane in the late Melbourne papers state that the deadlock in the Legislature still continues. The Opposition have memorialised the Governor on the subject, throwing the whele blame on the Ministry. The Governor, however, does not sympathise wi^h them in their view of the case, and in reply showed that the position they had taken up was untenable.

The Victorian newspapers (says the Argus) collected by the trustees of the Public Library for.trausmiasion to the London International Exhibition, have been handsomely bound together in the form of a book. The binding is of red morrocco, lined with blue moire antique, and decorated with elaborate gilt ornamentations. The journals will be forwarded by thejout-going mail. .