114-NLR-NLR-V-03-MUTTURAMEN-CHETTY-v.-ALLEGAN-CANGANY.pdf
( 266 )
MUTTURAMEN CHETTY v. ALLEGAN CANGANY.D. C., Kandy, 11,954,
1898.
November 19..
Promissory note—Marginal figures—Difference between marginal figureand amount mentioned in body of note.
The marginal figures in a promissory note or bill of exchange orenot an essential part of it.
If there is any difference between the amount expressed in themarginal note and the amount expressed in the bill, the latteramount is to be deemed the amount for which the bill was made.
P
LAINTIFF, the endorsee of a promissory note, sued the makerthereof for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 293*75 alleged to
be due to him thereon. The defendant admitted the making ofthe note, but said that it was granted for a sum of Rs. 193*75 ; thatthat amount was entered by him on the top of a printed formwhich was handed by him to the payee with authority to him tofill in the blanks. He also said that the figure 1 in the amountentered by him on the top of the note had been unlawfully alteredinto 2, and that such entry being a material part of the note, thealteration rendered the note void and freed him from liability to besued thereon.
For the plaintiff it was contended that the alteration was nota material one, and that the note was not avoided thereby, and thatthe onus did not lie on him to explain the same.
The District Judge held that the alteration was a materialalteration, even if that portion of the note be held only toconstitute a direction as to how the body of the note, which defend-ant admitted to have signed otherwise in blank, should be filled up,and that the burthen of proof was on the plaintiff to show that thealteration was made under such circumstances as not to vitiate theinstrument.
The plaintiff’s action being dismissed with costs, he appealed.Dcmhorst, for appellant.
There was no appearance of counsel for respondent.
16th November, 1898. Bonser, C.J.—
In this case the appellant is the endorsee of a promissory note ;the respondent is the maker of the note. At the heading of thenote there is, in Tamil characters and in the Arabic numerals, the
1898.
November 16.Booths, C«J.
( 266 )
amount Bs. 293-75. In the body of the note in English letters theamount is stated to be Bs. 293-75.
The defence is that the Tamil letters signifying 293-75 werealtered fraudulently by some person or other after the note wassigned by the defendant. The defendant says that he handed thispromissory note to the payee signed in blank ; that is to say, no partof the body of it was filled in with particulars of the date or thepayee or the amount. The note was in a printed form containingspaces for the particulars which I have just mentioned. He saysthat when he signed it and handed it to the payee, he wrote atthe head of the note in Tamil characters 193-75, and that theTamil character “ 1 ” was fraudulently altered to “ 2.” The stampupon the note is a stamp that would cover a note for Bs. 293*75,and is larger in value than is necessary for a note for Bs. 193-75.It was argued that this alteration is a material alteration, andtherefore avoided the note. In my opinion this alteration, ifit was in fact made, was not a material alteration.
This case is, in my opinion, covered by the case of Garrard v.Lewis, {10 Q. B. D. 30). In his judgment in that case Lord JusticeBowen goes into the history of bills of exchange and notes, and heshows that at no time in the history of such documents have mar-ginal figures been regarded as an essential part of a bill or note,but that they were intended merely as a sort of summary or indexof the contents of the bill which was under written- It is undoubtedlaw that, if there is any difference between the amount expressedin the marginal note and the amount expressed in the bill, the latteramount is to be deemed to be the amount for which the bill was-made.
Therefore, I am of opinion that the defence to this action fails,and that the decree must be reserved and judgment entered forthe plaintiff for the amount claimed.
In this case no question arises as to ‘whether the allegedalteration is apparent or not, so I say nothing about it.
Lawrie, J.—
I agree.
I am not satisfied that the promissory note was altered after itwas issued. Indeed, I am not satisfied that it was altered at anytime ; but, assuming it was altered, the alteration is not of a materialpart of the note.
The maker of the note says he signed a printed form, on whichthe space for an amount of the note was not filled up, and that onanother part of the note he wrote the words “ 193 "75 ” as a
( 267 )
memorandum of the amount for which he gave authority to thepayee to fill it in.
The decision in Garrard v. Lewis is exactly in point. Therethe alteration of a similiar memorandum was held not to be a materialalteration within the 64th section of the Bills of Exchange Aot.
1898.
November 16.Lawrih, J.