A RESERVED JUDGMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 2 September 1921, Page 1

A RESERVED JUDGMENT

UOHIXKOX V. "WiIIMCV. ■iriHi.MKNT FOR HKFK.N DA.Vi'ri. CIIKISTCHI HCII. Sept. 1. Tin* reserved judgment of his Honour Mr Justice llerdntnn, in the ruse in which William Herbert Robinson. liml)ci npont. of Christrlinivh. apnin-t. Robert \A Itiley :md I)is wife- Mnrparot Wbile.v, of Kanieri. Westland, trading ns Wliilev and Whilcy, sawmillers, nils rend at. the Supreme C.Yt.rt yesterday by the Resistrnr. Mr A. 11. Holmes. Damages were claimed tot the loss of profits through breach of contraet, the amount hoitlfi fixed tit £'2550. It was alleitf'd by plaintiff that the defendants agreed to sell him the onipttt of their mill for twelve months, estimated at 100.000 superficial feet monthly, at 17s hi per 100 feet. 1 hey had repudiated the contract with the result that plaintiff, who had arranged to sell llie timber in Australia, lost bis profit. lie based bis losses on the difference between the contract and the market price of the timber as *t Sept. 1020. The defendants denied that any contract had been entered into. The jury found that, there was no agreement as to the purchase or the whole of the output and that no terms and conditions were in fact agreed to by the parties after March. 1020. Roth sides were piven leave to apply fot judgment, plaintiff in addition lying leave to apply for a new trial. Regal argument was heard in Christrliureh. «»n August 20. Mr F. 11. Sargent. with Mr W. J- -Inyce. appearing for the plaintiff, and Air (). T. .T. Alpers, with Air .1. A. Alurdocb. for the defendants.

In his iudoiuent. Honour said that tlif jury linviiiK found us a fact ill,ut terms and conditions wore .ittreed ■ipi in liy tlie |.urtios 1 10 f ure March 10. 10-20, which were not included in any w lit tell itii-inorandinn. ttnil that tin' purties liiul never renelieil finality in their ni'eotintiims, nothin}; mnv remnitiotl lmt In irive iiiileinont for the defendants. He hud only to determine whether i-er-t.iin oviilenre w:is inlniissnhle. and he hold that it w„>. Whether the (inclines itj jhe jury v.i-ri* not justified t>y the t'iijetne WHS a matter wliieli could only hdelrrmined on a motion tor a new Lnul. | fis Honour was askuil to non-suit the plaintiff, on the ground that, havine ilis imtinin'i 1 an action against the same llefellilailts. fill* Hill'll Upon tin- a lie roll (■iintraet set up in the present proceedi 11 s. the plaint ill' was not. entitled to initiate a new' aetion until the costs n| the iliseont inite'd :ii-tiiill had he*n paid. Hi- 11 1:i11111 r said that the rusts of the di- ontiniied action had never 1 a -ell t.-i-ed and therefore had n-. vethern I'M-eiLaim-ii. and as it was ph'.n |’i- t , in ihe evi home that this was a fact, there Was no escape I null tin- {vinrij-l ■ that “where a plaintilf disi outinues an aetion. payment of costs is seldom a pro ,-e hut to the ri.eht to hevin a ln -h

i>:>i. mid I! () 11 -1 >; Iyin ■n i ill :i iron ml ~| A-. lm’\ ever, the d.-f.-nd ~iil? v ;inil’ll tln' liti-Mimi il 1- posi-d of ,011,' ;’ 11 1 1 IV.,- ,11. 11111 l ;:s lio < 111' ll '11,i,11 ,i,ll > 1,,,! ii. ii,-i|!it iilimil lii- sint'ioriLy I . irlniit ii,' . ' i.loiioo. to tlio .lMii-si.m ~i' ... liii li Ml’ Siii'uont <-lii<vtoil. lie wmiKl u ivo iiiiloiiicn: in .io:■uriltmt-i* w itl» tl-o limli'ors of t’.'o jury !'|iim the facts. . 111111 r. 1111 ‘ll ’ "a- ai'iii-liutily oiiio' ■! f,,i ill, <lo!'o!’i':iIIIvilli co-l? ns o'”’ ... ill rvi'"-T. mill i -oi.i - I '- 111 i ■ 11 1 Id lie -o' !Id liy I In’ Ho'.’i-' r fa