DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2842, 4 May 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) Civil Cases. White and Jameson v. the Standard Insurance Company, claim £IOO, moneys assigned to plaintiffs. Mr Perry for the plaintiffs, Mr Stout for defendants. This case arose out of the fire at Mr Hope’s premises in September last. Mrs Hope held a policy of insurance for £2OO from the Standard Company. Mr Perry objected to the defence, and Mr Stout thereupon took exception to the plaint. After discussion it was agreed to state the facts as admitted by both sides. The facts, as agreed to by both sides in Court were (1) that a policy was effected ; (2) that a fire occurred ; (3) that Mrs Hope gave an order on the the Company for £IOO (o White and Jameson on Sept. 24 ; (4) on the 26th the defendants received a letter from Mrs Hope stating that she had given such order and now revoking it ; (5) on the 28th the defendants received the order, and subsequently the defendants paid Mrs Hope £IOO. Mr Stout said the order was unstamped and invalid generally, and he submitted therefore that the plaintiff must be nonsuited.

Mr Perry submitted that the order had been given by Mrs Hope for a money consideration, and was valid in equity. Considerable discussion ensued between counsel. Mr Perry submitted that when Mrs Hope and the parties came to the arrangement, such arrangement became at once- an equitable assignment. He cited Smith’s Manual of Equity (p. 242) in support of his contention. Mrs Hope violated her agreement by getting the money from the insurance company when she had assigned it to White and Jameson. Mr Stout reiterated his objection to the order that it was not stamped,havingonly a postage stamp on it. Mr Perry said a postage stamp was as legal as a duty stamp. Mr Stout replied that that did not become law for a month after this order was given. Counsel also, in reply to His Honor, said ho regarded this merely as a cheque, not as a deed. It was merely an agreement to pay, not a valid assignment. Mr Perry contended still that what : passed between the parties made the order an irrevocable equitable assignment. It was for a valuable consideration, and that was sufficient of itself to make it a good agreement. It was clear that the parties to the order were in a position of antagonism afterwards, for both applied to the company for payment, Mr Stout had objected that Mrs Hope ought to be a party to these proceedings or there was no case. But he, (Mr Perry) contended that there was no need for Mrs Hope to be a party, for she had suffered no loss but had been fully paid. Judgment was reserved. IN-BANKRUPTCY..

Mr Hawkins applied for an order of discharge for G. H. T. Smith. Order granted. J. Casey,'was adjudged a bankrupt, on the application of W. S. Maslin, a creditor.