FLAXMILL LITIGATION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3778, 24 December 1907, Page 3

FLAXMILL LITIGATION.

At Christchurch last week, Mr Justice Chapman entered up judgment in a flaxtuill case, Hands v. Wood. In this case his Honour said that the plaintiffs held from Mr J. Stevens, M.P., a license for 1000 acres of flax land on the Cascade river, their terra of tenure being the balance of Mr Stevens’ seven years Crown lease! The river wap" very inaccessible, and plaintiffs being in debt and requiring capital had to look round for assistance. In December. 1906, they, raised a loan from the defendant, a large dealer in flax fibre, and an agreement was made in terms enabling him to recover the loan from the first two shipments of flax. Very great difficulty was experienced in taking a Steamer up , the Cascade driver, and when at last the flax» was-got down;-■the-• defendant having assisted the plaintiffs in getting a steamer, secured his debt with the cargo. Mr "Stevens' rent was overdue, and after much forbearance he cancelled' the plaintiffs’ license. The plaintiffs complained that when the defendant received the first shipment of 33 tons he did not apply the proceeds in terms of the agreement, but took them in reduction of his own debt- A large sum was claimed as damages. The plaintiffs relied on a clause of the agreement making it defendant’s duty to pay Mr Stevens’ ‘ debt out of the proceeds, and they ; annexed to the non-compliance all the consequences for which they claimed But , the clause did not mention the payment of " the debt, and the defendant said he knew nothing of it, and had never seen the license. He knew there was a license, and was content with the 1 plaintiff’s assurance that with their prospects they could soon pay his comparatively small advance. He never undertook to keep the license ' alive. His Honour could not read into the agreement an obligation on the part of the defendant to de- ' fer his own debt, especially when - the terms of the agreement on the ' plaintiff’s side were admittedly ’ broken, and only one belated ship- ■ ment came forward. The action | failed on the construction of the ; agreement. The claim for damages was made out on an extravagant scale, as the plaintiffs had explained, on account of their solici- 1 tor having misunderstood his instructions, but was never amended, 1 and the plaintiff sought to show very heavy losses. All the circumstances, he thought, indicated that ! their chances of making a profit from a single mill were very problematical, ,34$ jt was very doubtful whether a considerable loss, , due to defendant’s action, could ; have been held to be proved. Judgment would be given for the defendant, with costs. The plaintiffs appeared in per- ' son, and the defendant was represented by Mr G. Harper and Mr 1 S. G. Raymond. - '