BANKER AND CUSTOMER

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 781, 31 May 1881, Page 3

BANKER AND CUSTOMER

. At the recent.sittings of the Supreme 'Court at'"Hokitika, before Mr Justice Gillies, an appeal from ex-Judge Weston's ; charge to the jury in Hislop v. the iNationol Bank of New Zealand (limited), ,# heard. The facts upon which tho -appeaHurned were that Hislop received a 'remittance from Nelson through the defendant's bank at Eeefton; that, on applying for payment thereof, the bank induced him to sign it receipt therefor, and thereupon informed him that they should hold.Jhe money-sl4-against an old acpeptancp of his which hud been payable at auother bank, and h&d long since been dishonored, In an aooount which the bank opened Hislop was credited with the draft, and debited with the overdue bill, Hislop, disapproving, drew a cheque for the remittance', and, upon payment being refused, action was raised in tho District Court at Reefton for 1200 damages, Upon the law, as laid down by the presiding Judge, the jury found for with i>lo. After hearing .coufnsel'.on both sides, Mr Jnstice Gjjlljps, said : The case presented no difficulty. /The question Wiuj-Had the bank a right /' |'p appropriate the amount of the remit- ' jance towards a pre-existing debt? The pank hfld no such right, as \l received the rppney pn tin obligation to pay as directed by the customer, In this case the customer directed the bank by the cheque to pay the amount, and gave no authority to the bank to debit his account with tho dishonored bill. The ordinary principle of set-off does not apply in the case of banker and customer, The duty of a banker, on receipt of his eqatoifler's money, is to pay out such money as the ■(Stonier directs, The bill had not been made payable at the bank in question, upd therefore there was no direction to the banker to pay such bill. The learned » Judge's direction to the jury was right, and the appeal must be dismissed, with costs against the bank.