No corrections yet
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13TH.
(Before tfts Chief Justice.) The Court Bat at 10.30 a.m.
-W.A. BANK T. MILJIE.
This was an aofcion brought by th» Weitein Aaetralian Baak againet John C. Miller to recover Ü 1,762 5a. ld. on a dishonoured promissory note. The Attorney-General, Mr. B. Bart, Q C. (solicitors, Mesare. Stone .nd Burt) was tor the plaintiff bank, and Mr. W. F. Sayer (solicitor, Mr. Cr. Leake) for the defendant.
Mr. Sayer informed the Court fae should allow judgment to go for the plaintiff bank, aa, after reading the proof of the evidence for the defendant, he was satisfied the bank was entitled to recover.
Bia Honour said the caBe had been before him in Chambers, and be had formed the same opinion.
Mr. Sayer said the defendant and a Mr. Dempster were partners, and in 1893 they purchased a proper y called Billabalong station from the executors of the late Thomas Burges. The plaintiff bank were mortgagees of Burges, and were aware of what had taken place. The defendant and Dsmpifer gave promissory notes in part payment of the purchase to the exeoutors of Barges, and one of these was the note now sued npon. The notes were made by Miller and endorsed by Dempster, handed to the exeonto», and the bank beoama the bolder in dna oourse. The bank sued Dempster by separate aotion and obtained judgment against him, and now the bank sued by a aeoond ! aotion against Miller, and obtained judgment
against him. There was nothing irregular in that, although it was unusual, and he doubted whether the bank Baw at this time the extreme injustice and hardship that would result to Miller. This oould have been avoided had the bank joined the two persons and sned the ons as maker and the other as endorser. There- oould then have been a joint judgment, and this Jmrdthip and in)uBtioe would have bern saved. He ached the plaintiff bank to agrie that it would levy execution on the two judg- ments oononrrently if they went to execution.
The Attornty-Generol said he could not disouss the matter, bnt he would «présent it to his oliente and advise them on tbe subject. There was an equity suit between Miller and Dempster, and there were several judgments against one or the other of th« partners.
His Honour said he did not see that the , Attorney-General oould have said otherwise. He oould only express the. hops that the bank would not show favoar to one of the joint debtors nader the promissory note to the prejudice of the other.
Judgment was given for the plaintiff bank,
Moss v. BIXLITT. '
This was an aotion brought by Edward i Albert Moss against Walter Billett to obtain a dissolution of- partnership. Mr. P. W. Moorhead was for the plaintiff ; the defend- ant did not appear, and was not represented by oennsel.
The facts of tfaeoase aa put forward for the plaintiff were that he entered into part- nership with the defendant ns boot manu- facturers ind vendora in Coolgardie. They wer* te sbejfs the profits siter ft oertatn period* end lu tb» meantime werevnot to drew more then 48 » week. " After the
butine» ned been ^tarried »n, for oom» time/ ^.ipla^ti« ii
th* habit of drawing more than £3 a week. He remonstrated with him, with -the result that a diepnte aroa», and on the 2 lat of October laat, when the plain« iff went to the ahop, the defendant refused him admittanoe. The plaintiff had brought his action, and
olaímed a dissolution.
! A dissolution waa granted, with coats.
The Conn adjourned till 10.30 a.m. the following day.