Second Edition. SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2712, 11 October 1887, Page 3

Second Edition. SUPREME COURT.

-MONDAY. (Before his Honor Mr." Richmond and a jiiry bftwlvej.'. ' .' 't. MCCardlr. - - . • Mr;CHapman for "ffardsfor defendants*. This was an actio&ta: recover the' ;; sum of £560, Mancejoj- a -.prginissory. note of which defendants were -joint .endorsers, and which,'.was dishonored. Briefly the case was tfe-' lii connection with the purchase ofthe'Fahiatua / war, the defendants; with others, .cn- ; dprsed a, prommissory note m favov of j Edward Alexander Haggen for £GOO. j This was subsequently .by endorsement of Baggen and also lone Alexander. Bla'ok .transferred to't.lic'piaintilL.This . . , note was presented when due and was not paid, £SO howeM: liad'been paid. A renewal bill was however made out ; for m this was in turn trimsferitßp the and. duly pro-' BenteoTto date, arid also dishonored." The plaintiil' accordingly claims tho amount of the bill, togcthjerwith ' interest thereon front", the Btli day of April, 1887. (the dilate of llie bill), at £8 iler e'ont. Foy'thefilefenco it was'' nMeged tl.at the prpinissory note for £550 was made m&' fj being' iriateri-' . ally alterod without' their, conseiit: also, that it was a distinct uiido'rsiimdingtlmtit was to bo ronetfed "for a farther period of thrco calender' months, and so from time to timo jhring the period of eighteen calender JjMhs, yet tho. said renewal was emsequently refused^byplaintiff; and also, that there was never any consideration for the malting and, giving of tho said noto. There are also four, further heads of defence in connection / with the promissory note for fGOO, / chiefly based on the question of the plaintiff being the legal.holder or not -of the said note. "Mr Chapman °P C! l|}he il^u -' v, ' l ' c ' l cv '' denrefsf Mward.'A. Haggen and Francis- Fulton '..'was taken. Mr Cibapman was examining tho latter .witness when wo' went 'to press.— Press.