Saturday, November B.— Before His Honor District Judge Shaw. Webster Brothers v. Williamson and Crozier.— Judgment.— His Honor in giving judgment said ho had taken somo time to consider the arugmonts advanced by counsel iv this case, as it appcarod to him to be a very important case. The action was to re cover on a promissory note which had been dishonored on being presented for payment by plaintiffs, and they now sue the makers of the note for the value of it. The legal ques tions which had arisen were :-- (l)Is the note the personal note of the defendants. (2) If it be their own note is it competent for them to set up an equitable plea in this action that they made tho note as directors of the Waitara and Manukau Company. Tho jury found there was a mutual mistake in regard to this note. It was contended by counsel for plaintiffs that this Court had not jurisdiction to entertain an equitable defence, but after consulting authorities His Honor had come to the con clusion that the Court had power to hear an equitable defence. As to the question of the note being the personal note of tho de fendants, he thought there could be no argument. The note did not purport to be the note of the company on the face of it, there being no evidence of procuration or agency in the note whatever. He therefore held that the note was not the note of the company, but that of the makers personally. There being a mistake on the part of the makers of the note, he thought it was competent for them to ob tain an order from a Court of Equity restrain ing the defendants from enforcing the note as against them personally. His Honor, after exhaustive statements of the legal points in volved, concluded by giving judgment for the defendants.
