ERECTION OF BULK STORE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18229, 13 November 1924, Page 7

ERECTION OF BULK STORE.

WHO SHOULD PAY FOB IT 7 A bankrupt had erected a Tbnlk store in the Ashburtou district and, at tho Supreme Court yesterday, his Honour Mr Justice Adams was called upon to decide who should pay for it. The ease was an appeal against a decision made by Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., at Ashburton, on' July 25th. In the Magistrate's Court James Bland Christian, deputy-official assignee, proceeded against Robert "Wallace Wightman and Loftus Hardie for £94 15s, balance of money under a contract under which A. M. Bremucr, a bankrupt, agreed to erect a bulk store for Hardie and 'Wightman for £154 15s. Judgment was given by the Magistrate in favour of plaintiff against Wightman for the sum claimed. Plaintiff was nonsuited in his claim against Hardie. Wightman brought yesterday's appeal against the decision on the ground that the evidence in the Magistrate's Court did not justify the finding of the Magistrate that Wightman was liable in law, under a contract between Wightman and Bremner. It was submitted that, if Wightman undertook t.o pay for the erection of a building, it was merely as an agent for another. The appellant was represented by Mr W. J. Sim, Mr F. S. Wilding appeared for the respondent, and Mr P. D. Sargent for Hardie.

Mr Sim said that the work done, in respect of which tho claim was made had to be paid for, and the Magistrate had decided that Wightman should pay. Ho contended that that decision had been reached against the weight of evidence. The Magistrate had given a halting decision: he said that the evidence as to certain facts was "apparently reliable." Tho whole caso hung on tho bankrupt, Bremner, whose evidence was declared to be unsatisfactory and contradictory. Bremner did not appear to have shown to anyone that Wightman was responsible for tho debt. Bremner asserted that there was a contract signed, but it was not produced in Court. The case on appeal hinged largely on that contract. Wightman's evidence showed that, though Bremner had- dono much work for him, there had been no contract at any time between them. Moreover, the evidence showed that, at the time of Bremner's bankruptcy, and for some time after, Bremner appeared to regard Hardie as the debtor. Mr Sargent said Hardie was not really concerned, but he had been summoned to appear in the appeal. His Honour said there was only the question of costs to be considered with regard to Hardie. It wa3 contended that there was no production of a contract between Wightman and Bremner, and such documents as were 'produced killed the likelihood of such ! a contract.

Mr Wilding said tho evidence showed that tho liability for the payment from the store was on Wightman. The sum of £35 had been paid by Wightman's own cheque. Hardie had paid another amount of £25, bnt the explanation was that Hardie owed Wightman money. Hardie was an agen,t for Wightman. The evidence showed that Wightman was really Stevens Ltd. The only possible conclusion was the judgment of the Magistrate, and he submitted that that decision should be upheld. His Honour reserved his decision.