AN APPEAL ALLOWED.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2476, 15 April 1909, Page 4

AN APPEAL ALLOWED.

PEACOCKE V. WILLIAMS. At the Magistrate’s Oort yesterday morning Mr. VV. A. Barton, SAL, delivered the following, judgment given by Mr. Justice Edwards in the appeal case, M. J. Peacocke and C’o. (Messrs Kirk and Barnard) v. John William Williams and Sarah Williams (Mr. J. W. Nolan), which was heard in banco at the last sitting of the Supreme Court at Gisborne:—“This is an appeal from the Stipendiary Magistrate at Gisborne. The cole question submitted to this Court for determination is whether or not the instrument, in respect- of which the action is brought, is a bill of exchange within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1908. The instrument is in the following form:— ‘Gisborne., New Zealand, 11th June, 1098. Dr! Williams, Gisborne. Dear Sir, —Please pay to Messrs H. J. Peacocke and Co. the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds (£150), and deduct same from moneys corning to) me on account of contract for Mr*. Williams* residence, Whataupoko.—W. Crump ~ Accepted on behalf of Mrs. John Williams, W. Williams, June 11th. 008.’ The Magistrate has held that the words ‘and deduct same from moneys coming due to me on account of Mrs. Williams’ residence, Whataupoko’’ amount to a condition, and that the instrument is an order to pay out of a particular fund. That this was the intention of the respondent, Dr. Williams, in signing the acceptance at the* foot of the instrument, is, I think, most probable. Very likely it was the. intention of all parties to the instrument. I have not, however, to consider whether or not there may be a. good defence to the action upon equitable grounds, but merely the dry legal question as to whether or not the instrument, standing unexplained, is a bill of exchange within the statute. After careful consideration of the statute and'the authorities, I am unable to see that the words relied upon by the Magistrate in his judgment in the Court below, and by counsel for the respondents in this 'Court, amount to anything more than an indication of a particular fund out of which the draweeis to reimburse himself. This being the* case, the document is, in my opinion, a bill of exchange within the statute. The acceptance is general, but its form is peculiar. The effect may be doubtful ; see section 26 Bills : f Exchange Act. 1908; Alexander v. Sixer, L. 11. 4 Exch. 102; Bell v/Keesing, 7 N. Z. L. R. (S. C.) 1-55. No question is raised upon this point, however, though ail such questions trill be open to the respondents, or either of them, hereafter. Assuming, therefore, as is assumed by the case stated ond for the purpose of tins appeal only, that the- acceptance is an acceptance in such form, and in euch circumstances as to bind the respondents, they are bound to pay the amount of the hill of exchange, whether they have funds iu their hands or not. The case of Griffin v. Weatherby, L. R. 3 Q. B. 753, is, in mv opinion, conclusive upon the only point open to decision on the present appeal. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed, ancf the case must be remitted to the Court belaw. to be dealt with upon its merits. The appellants must have their costs or appeal. £7 7s. -and Court fees out of pocket.”