LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1292, 22 November 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. LOAN COMPANY AND J. ,!• MEIKLE. MAIL BOAT EPISODE. lUS SUIT I-01! DAMAGES FAILS. Two promissory notes, given to a loan company as security for borrowed mnncy. formed features j n .a Supreme Ormrl action yesterday. *Plii~ was beard before the Chief Justice CSir liobert Stout) anil a jury t>r four. The pbiintiff was John Janus Meikle, settler, of Wellington. The defendants wore the Wellington Loan Co., Ltd., of Wellington, the claim being for .£4115 S-\ lid. Mr. E. 0. Lovvey appeared for the plaintiff Meikle, and Mr. T. Young for the defendant, company. Meikle Stopped on s.s. Turakina. In the- statcmont of claim, it was set out that, on or about July 6, 1904, Meikle had borrowed a sum'of .£22 45., giving as security a promissory note drawn by himself. This was indorsed bv Win. The?, Whiuhnm in favour of the Loan Co., and was payable at the Loan Company's office three months after date. On August 3, 1!)01, Meiklo borrowed a further sum of -.£lO on similar conditions. On August 3, 1907, the Loan Company issued a summons against Meikle anil Whinham, with' a view to recovering! the amount of the promissory, notes and interest. Meiklo was not served, but the company obtained judgment against Whinham by default for the sum of .£33 7s. On December 12, 1910, Meikle paid to the Loan Company the sum of ,£33 135.. which, he alleged, had been accepted in full settlement of the judgment. On February) 9, 1911, Meikle embarked at Wellington on the Turakina, with the intention of talcing a business trip to England, and returning ns soon as his business there bad been completed. Just prior to the steamer"? departure, however, he was served with a summons for i'ls 14s. lid., this amount representing interest on the promissory note moneys. He was removed from the Turakina in custody of the bailiff, but. in order to be allowed to proceed on his voyage, he paid £W Bs, lid. under protest, and without admitting liability. ..

He Now Claims Damages, He alleged that tho' order for his arrest had been obtained by an affidavit which was untrue.'malicious, and made without reasonable cause. He further alleged that, by the arrest, he had suffered annoyance, dissrrace, loss of credit, and reputation. He now claimed the return of JH6 8.-. lid.,'and also ,€2OO damages for false imprisonment, and ,£2OO damages for malicious arrest and malicious abuse of process by tho Loan Co. The Loan Company's View of It. The defence was a denial that tho sum of. i' 33 13s. had constituted full settlement and satisfaction. Also the statements contained in the affidavits, filed for tho purpose of obtaining tho writ of arrest were true, bona fide, and without malice. The Loau Company entertained a genuine belief that they, had good cause of action against Meikle. In his opening address, Mr. Levvey was proceeding to make reference to his client's past history. His. Honour, however, declined to hear this. It was, he staled, irrelevant to the action. Mr levvey then went on to say that Meikle had borrowed money from friends and sympathisers, and also from the defendant company. If a man borrowed ,£2O for twelve mouths the company charged 2ft per cent:, but, as it ■would only give the applicant ,616, the nil:* was really 25 per cent. ' His Honour asked, what that had to do with the jury. There was no allegation regarding the interest. Mr.' Levvey: It has reference to the question .of • malice.. j His Honour: If 100 ner cent, were charged, it would not affect tho question 'of ,malice. . . . . • "Mri-'Levvey: I want to show how. certain amounts were arrived at. His Honour again remarked that this had nothing to do with the case. The Wording of a Receipt. . Mr. Levvey proceeded. In 1010, ho stated, Meikle had received .£2500 from the Government, but his liabilities amounted to £1000. He therefore told the company's secretary that he could only pay the principal and tho costs incurred in suing Whinham. Tho secretary of the company thereupon asked: "What, about the interest?" Meikle replied that he was not going to pay it, and the company could do what it liked. Eventually Rafter a long discussion), the. amount offered was accepted in full settlement. The receipt read: "Received from ,T. .1. Meikle the.siim.of £33 135.. being amount of two p.ii.'s (.£32 45.) and law'costs (.£1 95.1." The plaintiff Meikle then gave evidence. He stated that he had made no secret of his departure from New Zealand. He admitted (hat he had had several demands for the money, but he had not made any promises with respect to it. Though the receipt which he had received made no mention of interest, ho had, nevertheless, understood it to be a receipt "in full settlement." He had not answered a letter which he had received a week after paying the ,£33 l">s., simply because he thought that the receipt ho held was sufficient.

Action Fails, and Why. Mr. Young, without calling evidence, submitted that there was no case to go to a jury. Ho asked for a nonsuit' on j the grounds:—(l) That this action had not been commenced within the time specified by Section. 183 of the Magistrate's- Court .Act, and that no notice had been" given defendant as required by that Act. (i) That Meikle had not boon released from the debt. (3) That the magistrate's decision to grant the order for -was a judicial decision, and could not b? attacked by another action until it had been sot aside. His Honour, without giving a definite expression of opinion on the first point raised, upheld Mr. Young's other contentions, and dccideil that .there, was no case to submit to p. jury. Plaintiff was therefore nonsuited with | costs according to scale.

WRIT OF PROHIBITION SOUGHT. ■ HATAITAI LEASE. A writ of prohibition was asked in the Supreme Court yesterday before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Slout) to prevent a judgment of the Magistrate's Court bsnig acted upon. The parties to the action were William Herbert Brewer, commission agent, of Wellington, plaintiff, and Frederick Brattle, builder, of Wellington,.defendant. Mr. A. Dunn 'he - , -"-. tiff. and, Mr. C. K. Dis for the dofendant. Brewer alleged that on August 28, 1911, he entered into an agreement-, wan liraltlo to lease a house and land at Hntnitai. The lease was to bo for a period of fix months at. a weekly, rental of 255. a week, with a right of purchase.' Brewer paid the first fortnight's rent and entered int.") possession of the dwelling, .but shortly affrir the expiry of th" fortnight Brattle served a, notice ou Brewer requiring the latter to give up no»i..vn.ii within seven days. Brewer, declined to accept a week's notico as the tenancy was for a fixed period. Brattle, however, brought an action in tho Magistrate's Court and obtained judgment for possession. Brewer.now applied for a writ of prohibition to prevent that judgment being acted upon. The defence was a. denial that any agreement was entered into between the parties. A memorandum had boon signed and .was to form the basis of a more formal'agreement, which Brewer refused to execute. After hearing legal argument his Honour reserved decision.