Harbor Board Action.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 7, 25 June 1887, Page 3

Harbor Board Action.

7. GP\HAM AND OTHERS ‘ An application by the defendants that the plaintiff in the above case should provide security for his coats, was heard before the Registrar on Taursday last, The following report has been supplied to us Beesi with Mr E, ff. Ward, appeared for the plaint-'and Mr DeLautour for the defendants. Mr Bees: The date of the order ie June 11. I rtppoee Mr DcLautour make, the application. Mr DeLantour i I do not ask for security, Begietrax; It is purely a question ot InWttht, Mr.Reee i I will aek that the costs be ISWaed as against one defendant, and then the defendant, bafi, if they choose, ask that the action be stayed unt” further security be fenad. The taxed costs on the highest scale eould not come above £4O or £5O as against one defendant. Under the English rules £lOO had almost invariably been fixed on as tue amount ot seem ity in a public action of thia nature (see Gordon on cost,). In common law, and in personal actions at law, where a plaintiff sued for damages, substantia’. security could be asked for. In this case the .plaint } only sought to compel the There was no personal benefit to P the plaintiff beyond his being a ratepayer, and being .so interested, The security could only be tor future costs, and not past ones. In Daniel's Chancery Practice, p.p,, 19, there was an instance where the security was for past as wall as future costs, but this was because the plaintiff had become insolvent. There were many such cases (cited). In one case (Gor. don, p.p. 458 T), re the Phosphate Sewage Company, where the costs bad accumulated to £6OO, and the plaintiff had to find security for £2OO. In this case also there bad been a number of bankruptcy petitions filed against the plaintiff, In this (the Harbor Board) action there was no claim whatever for damages, and £4O or £6O would be ample security as against the Board.

Mr DeLautour; The order is perfectly debt. Plaint.’? should give security as against each defendant as well as the Board, and if the plaint'? was successful in his action that sum would have to be made good. The costs should be on that amount. There are three special amounts mentioned in the prayer—two five thousands, asd one twenty thousand, making £Bs,ooo—but the sum might be £200,000. The action was based on the supposition that the Board and members had been guilty of ultra vires acts, and it was sought to make them pay back these sums. Tuere was no right whatever to take into consideration the question of chances of success on either side. If the plaint ? chose to “ put up ” such large actions he must abide by it. The eases cited bad no bearing on that action. Baldwin had launched his ,s ttle boat and must float it.

Mr Bees: The Jud ges had viewed the the plaintiff in the light of a relator in the case, who bad no personal interest in Ue case beyond being a ratepayer. The order had been made bn account of the plaint ? not being a man of means.

Mr DeLautour : The Judges said Baldwin was a mere dummy in the action.

Mr Bees : The eecurity can only be for the amount of costs in the event of the defendants being successful, and even then the Court

might fix the costs on the lowest scale. Mr DeLautour wr’ied to assess the costs on £200,000 as a prohibition to the action being go_e on with. If the Registrar was to do this the Judge might say it was wrong, but it would then be too late to bring on the case tuia

Mr DeLautour must object to Mr Rees’ arguments, but would leave it to the Registrar. The Registrar: I think £lOO would be ample as against one defendant. Mr DeLautour: Tne prayer cites the whole claim. Mr Bees: There can only be one scale for all the defendants. They could all join and defend together. The Registrar: Then there would only be one set of costs.

Mr Delautour: Yon have no right to "suppose" what the Couu wi" do. The Order ia plain, and I do not see why you should go out of your way to put words in the order wk-'ch do not exist. Nothing can be dearer than the wording of the order. The security should be for the whole notion. Mr Bees: I never heard of such a case yet. Mr DeLautour: The plaintiff should be bound in double the amount named. Mrßeea: The plaintiff can discontinue ba against any one of the defendants should The Registrar: I can see uo reason why All the defendants should not have security alike. I can see no d terenoe, and rhall fix all alike, , The security was then fixed at f 100 in each losUnce,