APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 34, 4 November 1919, Page 2

APPEAL COURT

FARMING CASE

AN IMPORTANT DECISION

■Reserved judgment was delivered in the Appeal Court yesterday morning in the case of George Hunter Cates, of Auckland, farmer, appellant, and 'Arthur Gilpin Canning Glass, of Auckland, farmer, respondent;

On the Bench .were His Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Rol>crt Stout), Mr, Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Chapman. •

Geovgo Hunter Cates, who was the plaintiff in tho Court below, brought an action against Arthur. Gilpin Canning Glass in the Supreme Court, 'Auckland,' claiming iP2flfl general damages, and .£l5O tho value of tho plaintiff's labour on the farm. The defendant was the owner of a farm of acres at 'Whangamarino, in the Auckland district, r.nd appointed Cates as working manager of tho farming business. It . was recorded in the statement of claim that Glass agreed to finance and adequately stock the farm, to provido a suitable cottage for Cates and his family; to pay. Gates a minimum of .£75 per annum, and any profit resulting from the working of tho' farm to be snared equally between the parties; if any of the property was sold the ascertained profit was also to bo divided equally r.tho plaintiff gave a second mortgage for ,£4OO over property in Auckland, and it was alleged that defendant induced plaintiff to sign a promissory note for .£3OO on the representation tiiat 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 ;C4flflos a means of obtaining capital for his own purposes. The defendant subsequently met the .promissory note, but hod retained the mortgage. Tho agreement submitted to plaintiff, it was alleged, did not contain the terms agreed upon. Subsequently defendant terminated the agreement, am\ took possession of the farm. The defence was that there was justification for terminating the agreement, and a denial of most of the allegations of the plaintiff. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of four. The jury found for tho plaintiff, and awarded him damages. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the findings of the jury, and defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that all the findings oxcept ono were against the -weight of evidence, that the damages assessed were excessive, arrd that there was.no evidenco to support the findings on certain issues. ~..,- ,' Mr. Justice Hosking, in his judgment, said: "The alternative basis'of tho damages was not put before the jury, and I cannot substitute myself for them unless tho parties consent. To save expenso lam prepared to assess,the damages on tho alternative basis if the parties desire me to do so cither after hearing them orally or by written submission or without, as they, both agree.; It tho parties do not agree to leave tlio damages to the Court, or do not settle the amount between themselves, thero. must be a now trial to be confined to tho single question of damages.' Plaintiff was not awarded costs. Judgment was given for defendant for .£SO on a. counter-claim, but no costs were allowed him. ~,,., The appeal was to set asule the judgment granting a now trial, and against His Honour's refusal to give judgment for plaintiff on the jury's findings, and both appeals were taken together. . The decision of (he Appeal Court was that -judgment must bo entered for tlio plaintiff for the amount of damages awarded. X 230, and costs according, to scale. The Court was, unanimous with respect to the amount of the damages, but on the question of- costs His Honour the Chief Justice was of opinion that tlio Judge bad power to refuse . costs, while the other Judges wore of a. different opinion. His Honour Mr. ' Justice Edwards, whose judgment dealt at great lewl'li -with thelegal points involved, said that'he was of opinion that a ,Tu<H' of his mere power had not tlio right to deprive a successful Mip -,of "luiie" hearing Mr. J. It, Eoed.'K.C with him Mr. J. C Peacock, of Wellington, appeared for Cafes, and AtaU P. Skerrett, K.C., with .him Mr. Vallance, of Auckland, for Glass.