The value of the stamp which has been affixed is six cents—just whatis necessary for an “ on demand ” note. Had the document been intendedto be an account stated, the stamp value would have been considerablyhigher. The words, “ pay to your order ”, mean “ pay to you or to yourorder ”. In Willis v. Darrett (supra), the words were, “ to the order ofSmythe ”, and it was held that the document was a bill.
The remaining point is whether the endorsement is in order.
On the reverse side of the document are the words, “ the principal andinterest herein-mentioned shall be collected from the therin signedAna Nana Theeanna Layna by Rawanna Man a Adikappa Chettiar ofNattarasankottai ”, and immediately below this is the signature ofP. L. N. S. P. Suppramaniam.
Now, the Bills of Exchange Act to which I hve referred provides forvarious kinds of endorsements and one of them is what is lmown as “ arestrictive endorsement ”. Section 35 (1) refers to such a type ofendorsement and defines it as one inter alia which expresses that it is a
» 4 B. A Cr. 235.* 15 M. £ W. 23.
a (1816) 2 Stark 29.•
MAARTENSZ S.PJ.—Joseph v. Sugatadasa.
mere authority to deal with the bill as directed, e.g., for collection. Sub-section (2) states that a restrictive endorsement gives the endorsee theright to receive payment on the bill and to sue any party that the endorsercould have sued.
. f therefore hold that the bill has been duly endorsed by the payee as arestrictive endorsement and that the endorsee for collection is Raw annaMana Nana Rawanna Mana Adaikappa Chettiar, who can rightly sue.He is the plaintiff in the case. I wish to point out that in this endorse-ment Letchuman Chetty, the maker, is referred to only by his initials,once again showing the Chetty practice of. referring to a member of thecommunity by his initials.
The appeal is. dismissed' with costs.
Maartensz J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.