Appeal Court.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 August 1922, Page 1

Appeal Court.

RESERVED JUDGMENTS. BELCHER V. DIXON BROS. WELLINGTON, Aug 7. The Court of Appeal gave judgment in the Case of Belcher v. Dixon Bios. The Supreme Court had held that Dixon Bros, were entitled to retain tho proceeds of a cheque which was paid to them by Mrs Belcher, the appellant. The Appeal Court reversed this decision and allowed the appeal. The Chief Justice said that evidence showed that the cheque bad been paid direct by Mrs Belcher to Dixon Bros., and as it was paid under a mistake she was entitled to recover. Mr Justice Salmond, while agreeing that the appeal should l>e allowed, expressed tho opinion that Mrs Belcher’s cheque had been paid to the respondent through Hopkins, but that the circumstances showed that they were not Uie holders in due course, and could not claim to retain its proceeds. Tho other Judges agreed that the appeal should he allowed. Judgment therforo was directed to be entered for Mrs Belcher in the Supreme Court with costs according to scale. Appellant was allowed costs on a high scale as is the custom in cases from a distance.

Tlie case was one between Louisa Terris Belcher and Charles Dixon and Gilbert Dixon. Tlie facts as stated during the hearing of the appeal were that Allan Hopkins, formerly a land agent in Christchurch, had in 1918 £2091) belonging to respondents. This amount they instructed him. to invest for them in the purchase of two mortgages over the property of T. IV. Belcher. Hopkins purchased one of these mortgages but not the other, lie then told Mrs L. T. Belcher, the appellant, that respondent had these two mortgages for sale, and she agreed to buy them. Hopkins told respondents that they would be repaid the £2OOO which Was owned by him to them, on July 31st., 1919. Appellant at that meeting paid over £2OOO which respondents received. She thought she was purchasing tlie two mortgages above referred to. Respondents thought they were receiving payment of- the £2OOO which they had left in Hopkins’s, hands for investment. Late, run when the facts was discovered that Hopkins had not purchased the two mortgages for the Dixons, the appellant managed to get transferred for her the one mortgage Hopkins had purchased. She then sued respondents for the amount of the other mortgage, which she thought she had purchased from them, the amount claimed being £lOlO 5s sd. Sir John Findlay, K.C. and Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for the appealhint, and Mr \Y. J. Sim and Mr E. AY. White for the respondents. CHAPMAN V. RENDEZVOUS, LTD. The Court of Appeal gave judgment in Chapman v. Rendezvous, Ltd. In the course of his judgment, the ( hiet Justice, (Sir R. Stout), said that the appellant's case did not come with-, in the terms of the award. It had , been contended that the purpose of | the award was to prevent part time, employment of waiters, hut ii *u<4i j was the purpose it should have been j dearly staled in the award. Mr Justice Salmond said that, in his oiiiu-, ion, a, part time employee, such as appellant, was within terms of the award, hut must he paid not the full . minjimiiiii wage for a lull time cm- 1 plovee ,hut only a part proportionate j to the hours he worked. Appellant had been paid more than this, and the j appeal should he dismissed. The other Judges concurred and tlie ap-, peal was ’therefore dismissed wilhi costs oil the lowest scale, as in a case] from a disatnee. Chapman was a salesman in a hardware shop during the day. hut added to his earning by working at the Rendezvous T.td., rostaurn.it - for two hours everv night. For this he "as paid Cl 10s per week. He claimed he was entitled, under the present award to the minimum weekly wage payable under the award to a full-time waiter. This amounted to £2 15s per week. Mr Justice Adams, in the Supreme Court, held that Chapman's employment did not come within the award of the Arbitration Court, and thn the Rendezvous, Ltd., was not liable for the amount claimed. From this judgment. Chapman appealed.