COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 7, 3 October 1919, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL

A FARMING CASE CONTRACT WITH FARM MANAGER The Appeal Court was engaged yesterday, in hearing the'appeal of George Hunter Cates, of Auckland, farmer, appellant. and Arthur Gilpin Canning Glass, also of Auckland, fanner, respondent. On the,bench were Hit Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert S:out), Mr. Jui3tice Edwards, Mr. Justico Chapman, and Mr. .Justice Sim. , .Mr. J. It. Reed, K.C., with him Mr. J; C. Peacock, of Wellington, appeared for Cates, and Mr. C. P. akerratt, K.C., with him Mr. Vallance, of Auckland, for Glass. Georgo Hunter Cates, who was the plaintiff in the court below, brought an action against Arthur Gilpin Canning Glass in the Supremo Court, Auckland, claiming ,£2OO general damages, and <£150 tho value of the plaintiff's labour on tho farm. The defendant was the owner of a farm of 892 i acres at Whangamariuo, in the Auckland , district, and appointed Cates as lyorldng manager of tho Tanning business. It was recorded: in tho statement of claim that Glass agreed to finance and adequately stock the farm, to provide a suitable .cottage .for: Cates and his family; to pay Cates a minimum of £75 per annum, and any profit jesulting- from tho working of the farm to be shared equally between the parties; if any o{ the property was sold' tho a-soortained profit was also to be divided equally; the plaintiff gavo a second mortgage for JB4OO over property in Auckland, and: it was'allegW that defendant induced plain-, tiff to sign a promissory note for £300 on the representation that defendant required the money in order to purchase stock. It was further alleged that defendant did not properly stock the farm, but instead: discounted' the' promissory note with his own bank, and also used the second.mortgage for .£4OO its a means of obtaining capital for his own purposes. The defendant subsequently met the promissory note, but had retained.the mortgage. Tho agreement submitted to plaintiff, it was alleged, did not contain tho terms agreed upon. . Subsequently defendant terminated 'the cgreemont, ana' took possession of the farm.

The' defence was that thure was justification for terminating the agreement, and a denial of most of tho auegMMims of the plaintiff. 'Iho case wua heard by Mr. Justico Hosking and a jury of four. The jury found for the plaintiff, and awarded him ,£250 damages. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the findings oi ma jury, and defendant movod for a new trial on the ground that all minings. except'one were against , tho weight of evidence, that the daiaages assessed were excessive, and that thero was 110 evidence to support the findings on certain issues. s Mr. Justice Hosking, in his judgment, said: "The alternative basis of the damages was not put before the jury, and I cannot substitute myself for them unless the parties consent. To save eipen6o I am prepared, to aisess the damages on the alternative banis if the parties desire me to do so either after hearing thorn orally or by written submit sion or without, ns they both agree. If tho parties do not agree to leave the damages to the Court, or do not settle tho amount between themselves,- there must bo a new trial to lie confined to tho singlo question of dairages." Plain: tiff was not'awarded cost!. Judgment was given for defendant for .£SO on a counter-claim, but no costs were allowed him.

The appeal was to eet nude tho judgment granting a new trin!, and against His Honour's refusal to j;ive judgment for plaintiff on the jury's findings, and both appeals were taken together. Mr. Reed dealt at length with the evidence given in the Lower Court, the various agreements entered ir.to, and the qualifications of the appellant to act as manager, Mr. Reed justified tlio principle findings of the jury. Mr. Pea,cock also addressed' the Court, quoting authorities. The hearing of argument "had not eoneluded when the Court rose.