CLAIM FOR OVER £3000

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2155, 22 May 1914, Page 7

CLAIM FOR OVER £3000

DAIRY COMPANY SUED. , SIGNATURES TO A GUARANTEE. (By TcJeEraDt.—Press Association.) New Plymouth, May 21. In tho Supremo Court to-day, Mills and Sparrow, Ltd., of London, sued. William Sanderson and David Jamieson Bruce for £3102 3s. od., alleged to be. due on a guarantee in connection with tho Oliura Dairy Company. The case for tho plaintiffs was that in 1907 some, settlors of Ohura/ in- ■ eluding the defendants, were minded to have a dairy factory in the district, and , ' entered into negotiations : with Messrs. E. Griffiths and Co.; of Now Plymouth, the New Zealand representatives of Mills and Sparrow, for financial assistance. Finally, an agreement was entered into on April 18, 1907, between E. Griffiths and Co. and tho settlers. It was agreed that Griffiths and Co. should erect and. equip a factory at Niboniho, and that creameries should bo erected at Mangapapa and MangaToa.at the cost of the settlers; that a co-operativo . dairy factory company should be formed; and that when tho factories wero erected a mortgage should be given by tho settlers to securo payment of tho amount advanced and interest ~,at./the jrate ( of 7. per cent. * The plaintifts-, proceeded to act upon the agreement, a site, was procured for tho settlers at Nihoniho, and a factory was ejected there. ,In pursuance of the original agreement,, a mortgage ,was executed by tho company ,to s'leuro payment on December 1, 1912, of the' sum of £2500 advanced by. Mills and Sparrow, and further advances were, secured by, an instrument of tho samo date. A number of the settlers sinned tho agreement, by which also they undertook to repay tiicso moneys. '.Defendants, in tho statement of defence.' which was at first filed)'admitted tho _ mortgage and the agreement,, but denied that any monoy was duo undor tnn mortgage. ,

In an amended statement of defence filed.a few days ago they put in various new defences,.

Mr. Griffiths was cross-examined at great length, tlio case turning on the point as to-whether-lie did not fail to supply the original agreement,, to enable the company to obtain the .signatures to tho second guarantee, the contention'being that as all had not signed Guarantee, none ,were liable. \ The case is proceeding.