Thursday, August 28Th, 1880.

Inangahua Times, Volume II, 1 September 1880, Page 2

Thursday, August 28Th, 1880.

HBSIOP V. >?ATrONAL BANK OP NEW ZEA--lAND. This was nn notion to recover the sum of £14 16s 6d wrongfully detained, and £100 spec ; al damages. Before a jury of four. Pefendan U, denied all material allegations in tlie plaintiffs' p'ei. Mr Guinness appsared for the plaintiff, nnd Mv Lynch for the defendant?. The following evidence was called :— John Bei jimin Walsh : I am an hotelkeeper at Reeffon. Eeeollect plaintiff calling at my place, end asking me io nnsh a cheque. It was handed to me on the 17th June, and was for £14 16s 61. I produce the cheque. I cashed it in the ordinary way for defendant, and took it to the National Bank. Mr Robertson, ihe manager, and Mr Lewis, the teller of the bank, were both present. Mv Robertson looked fit the cheque, and 'hen handed it to the teller. I then nsked if there were any funds to meet the cheque, and Mr "Robertson referred roe ?o Mr Lynch, Hie hunts solicitor. T failed upon Mr Lynch, and he told me the hank did not intend to pay the cheque. Ooss-exnrained : Am aware that Hes» lop laid an information against the mannger of the bank. It wns after the hearing of tint case tbnfc I cashed the c'lpque. I knew that FFeslop's money lnd been stopped, but I did not know what mon?y it was. I solemnly swear that I did not know at the time of taking the cheque that it woul 1 not be pnid. Hrslop is a friend of mine. Know that he was expecting some money on eccount of a horse from Nelson. Heard that the money for the compensation of Heslop's horse wrs cumins through the National Bank. Heard from Heslop that he had been advised of the money being for* warded. After Heslop had been to the bank he cime fo my place, and said that the National B-ink had ruinpd him as they would r.ol give him the money, and that Reeves hnd made a mistake, and should hare remitted the money by the Bank of New Zffilav.d, instead of the National Bank. It was some days after this that I cashed the cheque. Cashed it in Ibe usual Wfir. Mr M'GafSn and the plaintiff enme into my bar together, and called for three drinks, and tendered tl c cheque on payment, and I passed (he cheque over the counter. Will swear tint I hare not since received back that money. John George ITeslop : About the 7th or Sili <"■? June last wm3 oxoecfing £15 from Nelson, and on the evening of the 7th Juno I rceeiyed the telpgram pro* duet 1 !. Upon rpceipt of (he telpcji^im I went to the Notional Ernie at Uepfton. and saw. Mr Robertson nnd Mr Lpwis focpHicr; T handed the telegrpm to them, and ask^d if the money had come down-. Tlicy siid that it hnd not come down, but as i- was after lank hours I had better cnll on the following morning, Nex* tr.orninft called, and saw Mr Lowis, the (ellor ; lie said that n telpgram hnr? bren received by the manager, and that I hail hotter c;».ll afrain. I did so, and saw the mvmier. He inquired if my n?.me was Hi.'s!op. find upon my informing him tha 1 it was, lm drew up a receipt and passed it across the counter, and asked me io sign ,U.,*'l did so, and returned the document to him with the object of getting the' money ; he passed the receipt back again to me, and asked me to put the Ja'e on the stamp. He then called Mr Lewie, who was in the gold office, and asked him to witness ihe receip^l waited for «ome' time, nnd they ijßiigan opening books and fakmg down parcels, and evmlualiy IWr "Robe-rtson enme to the counter and a»kcd me if there was not a

bill of mine in the back. I said there was one for £3 6s 6 I to Contanche, and that I would settled wiih him myself. Mr Robertson asked me if there wa* not another bill. I said no ; Mi- Lewis then asked me if there whs not one of Stratford and Coupe; I said ihere was but that T did not owo the mnney, and I explained the history of the lull to them both. I then asked for the money, and Mr Robertson said he would stop the money as against the bill ; I asked whether it was a manly or gentlemanly thing to take the receipt in that way ; he said he could have stuck to the money without the receipt, but it was better So have the receipt. I demanded the money saying it would ruin me, as I had promised it away ; be said he could not help that ; he then asked me the amount of Stratford's bill, and the date. I told ■ him as nearly as I c.-mM, and he res i quested me to %o, and fit-d out from my books the date, and amount and r.s well as the correspondrucrt which had i taken place with the bank in reference to , that bill ; he di<! not tell where the bill was, On the 17 It June saw Lewis in , the Magistrate's Court at Ittefton. Mr Lynch ol j >cfed to the witness giving any evidence of statements made by Mr Lewis. The Court held that the evidence was i admissible. Examination continued : Heard iipwi* I state that a telegram had been received i from their Nelson branch authorising ; them to credit me Trith £14 16/61. He ssid the amount was at the date of his ■ giving evidence lying to my credit in i the bank, and I thereupon gave a cheque lor (ha amount. Mr Lewis stands at the counter and pays the money ; he nlso marks all cheques previous to paying them. Cross-examined •- I did hear Lewis say in Court that he had been instructed not to pay the tnom\y. Have had conversations wild Walsh about the money ; am not clear that. I exp'ained my po«i* 'ion to him ; before Walsh piid the cheque he asked me if it was rit'hr, and f to!d him it was. Tkecol'ect giving a bll to Stratford mid Coupe. The bill produced is the one given by me to Stratford and Coupe, nnd is d>i^i?d Octobpr, 18/"8 Had been spoken f .o regarding the bill about twelve months , previously by Mr MVnteath j but I did not promise to j:ay a per; ion of the account ; except that I "had npver re» ceivfid sny consideration from the bill that when I care it was blank, and^ that is the amount, and d:tte was not filled in. Had an agreement that Stratford shou'd send up a r?riy and harness for the nniount. Had a conversation witii Mr Menteaih about settling the case. Several other witnesses were examined, and Ids Honor summed up upon the evidence lo the jury, wlio after a short absence returned tvith a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £30. The co-its assessed at £10 2s and judgment wan written. up for £60 2*. The Court then adjourned.