SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 283, 23 June 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

(Before Hia'Honor, Mr. Justice Gdllies.) “ Daily Southern Cross” v. James Morton. —This was an appeal from thb Resident Magistrate’s Court. The action was brought under the Unincorporated Boards’ Suits Act, 1870, on the 13th October, 1874, against the defendant, as chairman of the Ponsonby Highway Board, to recover the sum of £7 for advertisingThe defence was that the debt was incurred by a Board.not immediately proceeding the existing one, and that therefore the defendent was not liable The counsel for ,the jplaintiff in the. lower court claimed that there was a chain of vitality, and succession of responsibility, from one Board to another, and. that consequently the existing Board was liable for the debts of the previous ones. It was urged also for the defence that the ' outgoing Boards, which had incurred the debt, had not handed down their liability to their successors, because they had not, in conformity with the Highways Act, 1871, forwarded to the Superintendent’s office a statement of their receipts and expenditure. Also, that there was no binding contract with the original Board. The Resident Magistrate decided that the plaintiff could not maintain the action on the ground—apart from other objections not argued—that the debt was not incurred by the present Board, the present Board not being the immediate successors of those Boards which incurred the debt sued for, and the statements referred to in section 19 of the Highways Act 1871, had not been prepared and forwarded by the Board which incurred the debt in accordance with the provisions of ,that section. The plaintiffs declined to take a nonsuit, and obtained leave to appeal. Mr. Bennett was heard at length, in support of the appeal, directing his arguments, in reply to the first groupd of the Magistrate’s decision; it being admitted that the other was not a legal ground, but simply an equitable reason. Mr. Russell and Mr. Rees were heard on the other side. Mr. Bennett completed his argument in reply. His Honor, in giving judgment, said: I am sorry to have to give judgment for the respondent in this ease, in which the merits are on the side of the plaintiffs. I am of opinion that the Boards were continuous, and would be coutiuuously liable under the original Act by which they were elected year by year. But when the Act under which the Boards existed that incurred the debt was repealed without any saving of rights, the right of action against the pr -sent Board was destroyed. Even although the Board was continaouertn its existence,

still the right of action was not continued. That was broken off by the want of a saving clause in the Act of 1874. The appeal must therefore be dismissed. Mr. Bennett submitted that this was not a case in which the respondent -was entitled to costs.

His Honor said: It is admitted that the plaintiffs did the work charged for, and they ought to have got their money. They have failed to recover, owing to bluntlerl made/gr the ProvinciaTCounci] in"ffie Acf 'ofTB74. finatifi tn ths., respondent. — D. S. Cross.