GH - SAMUEL DAVID PAPPOE

he following judgments were delivered:-

MICHELIN, ACTING C.J. THE GOLD COAST COLONY. 8 per ce

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Chief Justice (Sir George Campbell Deane) dated the 30th of December, 1932, in which he gave judgment for the defendants with costs.

By his writ of summons dated the 8th of July, 1932, as amended in Court on the 21st of September, 1932, the plaintiff claimed that an account should be taken of what sums had been overpaid by the plaintiff to the defendants as interest on his overdrawn account with them or otherwise from the 1st of January, 1918, to the lIth of February, 1932, the date of the settlement of the said overdrawn account, and for payment to the plaintiff of the amount so found due with interest thereon from the date of such payment to the date of filing of the writ of summons herein.

Pleadings were ordered by the Court and filed by Counsel on each side, and after an exhaustive hearing the Chief Justice delivered a written judgment on the 30th December, 1932, in which after setting out the facts and the law, he concluded as follows:-

•• I am of opinion that the money paid by plaintiff on the 11th of February, 1932, to settle his account with the Bank was not paid under any mistake, but that on the contrary right through he knew of what was being done and agreed to it. I am further of opinion that the charges against plaintiff right through were the customary and usual charges of Banks in the Gold Coast and fully justified, and I see no reason for reopening the account which has been settled."

" There must be judgment for the defendants with costs."

Three grounds of appeal were originally filed, but in arguing the appeal Mr. Phipps, on behalf of the appellant, confined his submissions to the following two grounds, abandoning the second ground:-

(1) Some material findings of fact were against the weight of evidence.

(3) The judgment was wrong in law.

He dealt with these two grounds together, and his submissions for the purpose of convenience may be grouped under the following five headings :-

(1) Question of verbal agreement with Bank for overdraft in January, 1918.

(2) Was the Bank justified in charging 10 per cent compound interest with monthly rests?

(3) Was there acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff in regard to such charges ?

(4) Was the account closed on the 17th August, 1921 ?

(5) Was the account closed on the 18th November, 1922 ?

In arguing as to (1), Mr. Phipps submitt