S.M. COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2803, 28 October 1924, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

At- the monthly sitting of the S.M. Court, held last Friday before Mr J L. Stout, S.M., Air P. L. Rollings proceeded against Mr G. T. Woodroofe for the recovery of £7 17/6, allegedly due to him for professional services rendered. Mr Grant appeared for defendant. Mr Rollings conducted his own case and in evidence said that in January of this year defendant was running the business of a. man named Tollison. (he latter ha ving got into difficulties. The same month Tollison was adjudged bankrupt. Defendant came to witness and desired that the bankruptcy be annulled or delayed. Defendant was the client and not Tollison. Witness told defendant he would have to pay the costs. The matter was of no value to Tollison, who had,nothing to gain or lose by the annulment or delay, as he was hopelessly insolvent. Witness took the matter in hand and appealed. Tollison was examined and admitted that Woodroofe was taking the proceedings and paying <• the expenses incurred. Woodroofe paid witness £lO at the beginning to take up the case. After the jfroeeedings were concluded witness delivered his bill in the ordinalway to defendant and gave him credit for the £lO paid on account, which left, a balance of £7 17/6 in that account. There was also an additional £ll/- item on .the bill which had been paid, having no reference to the account in dispute. The bill was delivered on the 11th September, 1024. Proceedings were commenced -on the 11th October, 1924. Mr Grant, producing the bill, pointed out that the type-written date on it was the 11th September, but a written date under Air Hoiling's signature was the 17th September. Air Rollings said that the latter date was an error. The hill was delivered on the 11th September by him to Air Woodroofe. Mr Grant contended that if the bill was delivered bn tin- 17th September legal action had been taken within one month from the first service of the account, which was contrary to law. In any case, taking Air Rolling’s explanation, the lltli October was not “at the expiration of one month from first service.” Continuing, witness said Air Woodroofe was one of Tollison\s secured creditors. He informed him of the result of the appeal. Witness contended that the Hilt October was at the termination of one month from the first service of Hie hill. Air G. T. Woodroofe denied giving Air Rollings any authority to proceed with the case on his behalf. Denied giving Air Rollings £lO to start proceedings. He had paid Tollison £lO for wages due to him and Tollison had given the money to "plaintiff. He had been summoned to Air Rollings office in -January and asked to make an appeal against the bankruptcy but had declined to have anything to do with it as he had already lost, money over Tollison. The S.M. reserved his decision. Preston proceeded against Poupard for the recovery of a dog and, damages for detaining same. Air Rollings appeared for plaint ill and Mr Bergin for defendant. Mr Rollings intimated that since proceedings had been instigated the dog had been recovered and there, remained now only the question of damages. Preston, in evidence said that some time ago he sold his dog to a, man named Scohie, manager for Poupard. A short time ago he repurchased the dog from Scohie for £2. The dog had not been delivered and witness had seen it working and running about at Poupnrd’s. He had been greatly inconvenienced by the non-delivery of the dog. Since proceedings had been commenced the dog had been returned. He had previously sent his boy to Poupard’s for the dog hut defendant had refused to give it to him. Mr Bergin, for defendant, said that the matter was purely between Preston and Scohie. In any case, the seller was hound down to deliver the dog. Seobie was away when the boy called on defendant and naturally defendant was not going to deliver 1 lie dog to anyone who called for it. The S.M. •' -Judgment for defendant with no damages. Air Rollings: Would your Worship fix the amount for appeal. Alv client may wish to appeal. The S.M.: It would be a 1 waste of money to appeal, Mr Rollings. The amount for appeal will be £2O.