District Court.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3251, 9 July 1889, Page 2

District Court.

MASTEETON.-TUESDAL (Before His Honor Judge Bobinson.) Bly v Briggs. Claim LIOO. His Honor, after reviewing and carefully considering the aotion Bly y Briggs, brought before him at the last sitting of the Court, 1 gave judgment for defendant with costs. ■ ■'■ Bank New South Wales v Samuel Uappek, In this case the plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendant tho sum of £IOO given as a guarantee in tho estate of Brown & Rodgers. Mr Bunny conducted proceedings on behalf of plaintiffs, and Mr Pownall, assisted by Mr Gawitli, defended. The following jury were ernpamieM: Messrs D. Dixon, (foreman), T. Cresswell, R. Jacques, and D. Mo-

.enzie. Mr Bunny, in opening the case,

stated defondint admitted signing a guarantee, but that lie only paid LSO instead of LIOO under that agreement. In defence Mr Gapper would put forth that he was induced to sign the guarantee under fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendant had paid into Court LSO, with interest and costs. The balance defendant alleges he is not liable to pay. Mr Bunny contended that inasmuch as defendant had paid LSO he admitted the whole liability of LIOO. He thought the question was. simply one of law, the interpretation of which would not require the assistance of a jury to settle. Jt was for the Court to decide

whether it was a guarantee or not. Mr Pownall said whilst admitting the guarantee generally, his client did not admit the printed form. The guarantee and form must be proved by the plaintiffs. His client's contentions would be proved in the ordinary way. Although admitting LSO due, the overdraft of the other LSO must

be proved. His Honor thought from the admissions made a guarantee to the extent of LIOO had been entered into

by defendant, This guarantee the plaintiffs would have to put in. Defendant admits tho LSO liability and plaintiffs would have to show that defendant was principal debtor to the extent of LIOO. So far this had not been shown. This would be necessary.

Replying to Mr Bunny Bis Honor said the matter of guaranteo was not one for thejury to decide, Mr Bunny;" The plaintiffs are seeking to recover LIOO under a written guarantee given to tho Bank by defendant on the 6th July, 1887, in which he undertook to pay on demand advances to Brown ani Eodgers, Before the guarantee was signed those parties woie considered satisfactory customers of the Bjnk. They had always discharged thoir liabilities, and- on tho day the guarantee was given that amount was to their credit, Brown and Eodgers had two large contracts in hand at the time, and the Bank would not make further advances until they had seoured a further guarantee. Finally Mr Gapper, on the Gth My, signed a guarantee of LIOO, At that time defendant obtained from bank-

rupts a bill of sale to secure him in

case he was called upon to make good the guarantee, Advances were ultimately paid out of the guarantee. On the 11th August, 1888, Brown and Kodgers filed, and the Bank at that time were unsecured creditors to the extent of L 248,

(Left Sitting),