[promissory note]

Hughes and Hosling v. Redman

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Dowling C.J. and Burton J,  July 1841

Source: Sydney Herald, 26 July 1841

NEW TRIAL MOTIONS.

HUGHES AND HOSLING V. J. REDMAN.

            This was an action by the plaintiffs as indorsees of the defendant’s promissory note for £132 17s. 6d. the case had been tried last term, before Mr. Justice Stephen, and upon a plea, that the defendant did not make the note, there was a verdict for the plaintiffs. Mr. Windeyer, for the defendant, moved to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that it being proved at the trial that the note was lost, the plaintiffs could not recover upon it at law: the learned gentleman urged this point at considerable length, and relied upon the case of Hansard v. Robinson: 7 Bar. and Cres.

            Mr. Foster and Mr. Broadhurst appeared to support the verdict; but they were not called upon to address the Court.

            The Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the Court confirming the verdict.

            Mr. Justice Burton said, that upon the pleadings in this case in order to entitle the plaintiffs to recover in this action, it was only necessary for them to prove that the note of hand had existed, that it bore the defendant’s signature, and that it was destroyed: it must be now taken that the plaintiffs had proved these facts, and the verdict must therefore stand. The case which had been cited referred to bills of exchange, but between the nature of bills of exchange and promissory notes there was a marked distinction for the law, with respect to the former, depended upon the custom of merchants, whereas with respect to the latter, it rested upon statute.

            Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Carr, Rogers, and Owen; for the defendant, O’Rielly.