SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1926, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT HOKITIKA. MONDAY, JUNE 21st. (Before His Honour, Mr Justice Adams). AN APPEAL. Joseph Radomski. appellant, v. William J. Haseler, complainant, an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate at Hokitika, given on 2fith .Time, 1924. Mr Murdoch for appellant and Mr Pilkington for defendant His Honor resumed his seat at 2.15 p.ni. M r Pilkington addressed the court in reference to matters dealt with by Mr Murdoch, and discussed with his Honor the evidence on the subject before him and also spoke on the legal points raised- '

About 4 p.m. the case was concluded and liis Honor gave judgment. His Honor said it was unfortunate in this case (which was heard on June 2d, 1924) that the Magistrate had given no reason for his judgment, and as a result he (his Honor) found it very difficult to ascertain what was in bis miml or the grounds on which judgment was given. The claim was tor £l2 9s 2d, made up of half the judg; meat and costs of a claim brought by Messrs M'alfroy and Co Ltd against both parties to the present, ease. The appellant (Uadomski) alleged there was a partnership between the appellant and respondent in a particular contract with the Aralmra Dairy Coy. The appellant made a confession of the debt but responded contested the debt, claiming be had assigned the contract to appellant. The amount of costs added to the claim was £9 12s 2d, and one half of this sum was included in the claim. It was abundantly clear that so far as this £1 His Id was concerned there was no cause for action, as the respondent chose to defend the action in which the costs were incurred and .so must pay the same, in reference to the balance, liis Honor said lie had the gravest doubts as to Hie position. He bad sought in vain, in spite of the assistance given by (utilised to ascertain the correct cause of the judgment. It was difficult to say if there was sufficient in the evidence to justify the Magistrate in coming to his decision. He (bis Honor) was not satisfied himself, ami could nut say that there were reasonable grounds to upset the decsiion. Ihe onus was on the respondent. He did not think it was established that there was any assignment of the Aralmra contract, lie did not feel called upon to decide whether there was a partnership or mil. on Hie (acts before him, and he was of opinion the Magistrate was unable to find sufficient evidence in favour of the respondent. He* thought the proper course would 'have been to have non-suited, and if the respondent so desires he can have a non-suit now.

Mr Pilkiugton after consideration stated that lie thought it would be' fho better course to accept a non-

llis Honor then allowed the appeal on flu* claim, but not on the counter claim of appellant (Uadomski). and directed that in N the Magistrate s Court a judgment ol non-suit he en tered against the plainiifl (llaseieij. On the question of costs his Honor said it was an unfortunate matter for both parties and he thought it would be best that both parties he non-suit-ed. without costs. AN APPEAL. ON POINT OP LAW ONLY. Inter-Wanganui C'ov. Ltd., appellant. v. Cecil Authetnnun. respondent. Mr Murdoch for appellant and Mr EL cock for respondent. There was an appeal by a dairy compilin' against a decision given by Mr Metdroni St.M.. nt Hokitika, in the Magistrate’s Court, in which judgment ( had been given in favor of Cecil Authemann against tin* Dairy Companv in respect of a bonus of £l2 Os Id alleged to have been passed at a general meeting of the company. It was explained that, this action wai a. repivscntnfivc action and involved a liability to the Company of £6OO or over. After bearing counsel on both sides who quoted a large number of decided cases of an extremely technical character. His Honour said it was unnecessary for him to reserve hi*- d * vision, as in liis opinion the decision of the Magistrate was dearly wrong in law. The action could only he brought by Mr Aulliemann as a supplier and not in the capacity of a shareholder. In order to succeed as a supplier it was necessary to prow,* a contractual relationship and a promise to pay a bonus at the time of supply. In the case before the Court the- declaration of the bonus was only made long alter the- supply and delivery of the milk by the supplier to the factory. The evideme led by the plaintiff in the Court below showed mat the Directors of the Company bad act'd bona, fide and in liis opinion they were within their rights as the matter was entirely

at their discretion. the whole business hein*; within the internal administration of the Company. Ho therefore i oversell the decision of the Magistrate and allowed the appeal. The Court then adjourned.