THE MORATORIUM

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2244, 2 September 1914, Page 7

THE MORATORIUM

ACT NOT RETROSPECTIVE. \ 05 interest at the -presesw, moment was'-the judgment delivered by 'Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the Mas. istrate's Court yesterday morning. It concerned a civil dispute heard by him last week, in which counsel for the defence .pleaded for protection under theMoratorium' Act—mortgage extension. The case was an action by John Bateman' Hardoiirt and Chas. Jas. Stanton Harcourt against Robt. Barnett, for the sum of £74 3s. 5d.," instalments of principal and interest due under a> mortgage of lease fiom defendant to plaintiff, and dated March 7, 1912. "This action was commenced on April ,22 last,"' s'akl the Magistrate, "but owing to a difficulty in. locating the ) defendant, tho summons was not served upon him until August 17. It. was. admitted by the'plaintiff that a state of, war existed in New' Zealand, and that they had not obtained the leave of the Supreme Court' to commence the present action. Counsel . for defendant, submits that plaintiffs cannot get. judgment for any part of the principal sum demanded unless they have first obtained leave to sue from the Supremo Court.. Section 3 of the Mortgagees Extension Act, 1914, which became law 0.-1 August 14, enacts that so long as I a, state of war exists in. New Zealand and for suoh period as may be pre- [ scribed by regulations'hereunder not exceeding six months after a state of war has ceased to exist, it shall not be lawful for a mortgagee without the leave of the Supreme Court: (a) To call or demand payment from any /mortgagor,of, the.,pfiiicipal sum or any part of the principal sum secured by any mortgage; (c)' to commence any aotion for breach of any covenant, etc;, expressed or implied in any mortgage other than'a covenant for payment-of interest. iVThe evidence for ' -trie, -rAaiutifi shows," continued the "that defendpnt made default in ,pay-ment-of his instalments and the balance due under the mortgage was called up about a year ago and this action was commenced ,in April last. Under these circumstances I do not think the provisions of the Mortgages Extension Act apply to those proceedings as they were commenced berorethe passing of the Act and there is no provision in it making it retrospectiw.," .• Judgment was accordingly given for .plaintiffs for £74 &s. 51.. with, costs \£s\4s. 64. ... . ...