SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2008, 16 March 1914, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

CASE ON APPEAL ON POINT OF LAW. A case on appeal on a point of law was heard in the. Supreme Court on Saturday morning before his Honour the Chief, Justice (Sir Robert Stout). The appeal was from a decision of Mr. W. (i. Hiddell, S.M., in the action in which Ellis and Manton, merchants, of Wellington, wcro plaintiffs, W. J. Scanlon, tobacconist, of Lower Hutt, defendant, and Casey and Hayes, contiactors and property owners, of Lower Hutt, subdebtors. Original proceedings dated back to March 27, 1913, when Ellis and Alanton obtained judgment against Scanlon in the Magistrate's Court for the sum of £31 12s. Id., for goods supplied. Thereafter Ellis and Munton issued a distress warrant, to which a return' of nulla bona was made at the beginning of May, 1913. On May 15, Scanlon appeared in Court on a judgment summons, but tho Magistrate declined to make any order against him. Oh June 17 a new phase of the case arose, when Scanlon obtained judgment against Casey and. Hayes for £39 95., being damages and costs for an illegal distress. Two days later, on the application of Ellis and Manton, an interlocutory attachment order was issued at v the Magistrate's Court (in respect < f this judgment for £39 95.), and was served on tho sub-debtor (Casey and Hayes) on Juno 23, 1913. Meanwhile, acting on the advice of his solicitor (Mr. A. Dunn), Scanlon, on June 19, signed documents necessary to assign the amount (£39 93.) to Mr. Dunn, in payment of all legal charges. The balance was to be applied towards the payment of three creditors named. On July JO, 1913, Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M., hoard argument on the question as to whether tlie interlocutory attachment order should bo mado absolute. On August 8, the Magistrate in a reserved decision refused to make the order absolute, but granted leave to appeal and also granted a stay of execution in respect of tho moneys (£39 95.) which had been paid into Court by Casey and Hayes to abide the decision of the Court. ■Acaiust t]iis decision the judgment creditors appealed on the ground that it was erroneous in .point of law iii deciding—(l) That there.was a valid assignment by the judgment debtor; (2) that, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognisince of and give effect to such alignment; ami (3) that tho assignment took priority over the attach; ment order issued on the application of Ellis and Manton. Mr. P. B. Cooke nnpeitred in support of the appeal, which . was opopsed by Mr. A. Dunn. \ ■ Mr. -Cooke contended that the attachment order should'he mado absolute as there was no valid assignment or trust ' created by the judgment debtor of the moneys dun by tho sub-debtors to him; that tlie Magistrate's Court Mi no jurisdiction; that the : assignment should be postponed until after the attaclimcnt orde" had been satisfied as tho. assignment and tho order were bothmade on the'same date; that tho assignment, if in order, W!«s void (under an Eliwbetlian statute) because fon.ii'i- - sel saidl it was mado with intent to hinder, defeat, or delav'creditors. Mr. Dimn contended that he had a Hen..'for ; his costs;,,thai the assignment of'June.]9 was entitled to priority over the attachment order; and that notice of tho assignment was not necessary in order to give priority.' ' Decision was reserved.