Callow J:

This is a claim for damages consequent upon the dishonouring by the defendant bank of the plaintiff's cheque.

The facts are not in dispute.The plaintiff is the contractor for the Canteen of the Chung Ling High School, Penang.It is a large of some 1,500 pupils and 60 teachers.

On 11 January 1949 the plaintiff drew a cheque for $439.65 payable to Messrs.Chiat Moh. This cheque was dishonoured.

On 14 January 1949 the plaintiff accompanied by the drawer's son (second Witness) visited the bank.The defendant bank admitted the error and the plaintiff drew his balance which exceeded the amount of the dishonoured cheque, closing the account.

It is shown that in consequence of this episode the drawer of the dishonoured cheque, Messrs.Chiat Moh, closed the plaintiff's credit account and now insist on cash; further that the Refrigerator Service Company cancelled an offer to sell the plaintiff an Ice-maker Machine on the hire purchase system and demanded cash, and the fourth witness Yeow Bong Peng who formerly granted the plaintiff a credit account of some $300 per mensem insisted on cash after the dishonour of the cheque.

The defendant bank acknowledged their error and endeavoured to make amends, but the parties were unable to agree upon the quantum of damages.

Clearly the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable compensation for injury to his credit (Chitty, 19th Edn., p. 271), and no proof of actual damages is demanded Rolin and another v. Steward [1854] 23 LJ 148.In Rolin v. Steward (cited supra) William J said:

. . . . . since the dishonouring of cheques is particularly calculated to be injurious to a person in trade, if it be alleged and proved that the plaintiff is a trader, the jury may take that fact into their consideration in estimating their damages,. . . . . . .

and in directing the jury Lord Campbell said that the jury "should give such temperate damages as they may Judge to be a reasonable compensation for the injury the plaintiff must have sustained from the dishonour of his cheque.

In Sheldon's Practice and Law of Banking 5th Edn., p. 52 it states:

The banker, before taking such a serious step as dishonouring a cheque for lack of funds, must make absolutely certain that the state of the account justifies him in so doing.Substantial damages would usually be awarded against a banker who had improperly dishonoured a cheque and thereby injured the credit of a business man.

Now it was not shown that the plaintiff has suffered in his business as claimed in para. 6 of his pleadings, but he has shown injury to credit and reputation. I was not impressed by the books Exh. A 14 a to d which certainly appear to support Mr. Pooley's contention that they had been prepared for the case.They have detracted from the plaintiff's credibility.

After due deliberation of all the circumstances, and after consideration and comparison with other reported cases I find a fair sum the plaintiff is entitled to for damages is $1,000.

He is also entitled to costs.

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $1,000 and costs on scale of Sessions Court.

Judgment for the Plaintiff.