( 103 )
COMERAPPA G5HETTY v. JAYASOORIYA.
D. C., Qatte, 3J65.
Action on promissory note—Plea of payment—Corroborative evidence—Burden of proof.
When a defendant who is sued on a promissory note alleges onoath certain payments and gives dates and particulars of eachpayment, the plaintiff is bound to lead rebutting evidence.
HE facts of the ease sufficiently appear in the judgment ofBonser, C.J. ■
Domhorst with Blaze., for appellant.
Layard, A.-O., for respondent.
30th September, 1896. Bonser, C.J.—
In this case the plaintiff sues the defendant to recover a sum ofmoney alleged to be due on a promissory note.
( 104 )
September 30.Bonsvb, C.J.
The defenoe was that the claim was satisfied by a number ofpayments,, extending over a long period of time—extending fromthe 15th October, 1892. The defendant called evidence to corro-borate his statements as to certain of his payments, and in oneor two instances his witnesses gave a rather different account ofthe transaction from that given by himself. But with regard toone alleged payment, at all events, there is no doubt that thecheque for Rs. 25‘42 undoubtedly found its way into the hinds oftbe plaintiff and was cashed by him. The defendant swears thatthat cheque was given on account of this note. There is noevidence on the other side. The District Judge said that he didnot want to hear any evidence. The evidence of the defendantis corroborated by the production of the cheque itself, but theDistrict Judge says that the cheque may have been given for someother transaction.
It seems to me that, in a case like this, when the defendant, onhis oath, alleges certain payments, the onus is on the other sideto rebut that evidence. Of course if a- defendant merely says Ipaid the money and gives no dates or particulars, the judge mightdisregard the statement as being altogether too vague; but whenthe defendant goes into the box and gives particulars of eachpayment, and supports the payments by the production of acheque, there is a case made out which calls for evidence on thepart of the plaintiff in answer. Therefore I think that this caseshould go back for a new trial. The costs of the previous trialand of this appeal will depend on the result of the new trial.
I agree in the order pronounced. I am very loath, as a generalrule, to send a case back for a new trial; but there are instanceswhen this must be done to secure the ends of justice.
COMERAPPA CHETTY v. JAYASOORIYA