AN ASSIGNED DEBT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 16, 19 September 1913, Page 6

AN ASSIGNED DEBT.

A COMPLICATE!) CASE

A complicated case in connection with an assigned debt was heard at the Court this morning.

Mark Cronin, a laborer, of Whanga-

momona, incurred a debt with one Towler. The debt was later assigned to VY. Harris, and on his behali Messrs Anderson, Rutherfurd and Macalister

took steps to collect it. Judgment was recently given against Cronin for the

amount of the debt, and in due course he appeared on judgment summons at the Court this morning to show cause why the amount for which judgment had been given had not been paid. Mr Macalister appeared for judgment creditor. It appears that the original debt owing to Towler was £1 8s Id. Cronin, iii the witness-box. stated that the debt in question was the only one he owed to Towler. He produced a receipt for £l, and stated that he had paid the balance but had lost the receipt. The £1 had been paid to Towler before the, date of the assignment. He had been, approached by the assignee's solicitor on the matter. He (defendant) was at work at the time and said he had the receipts at home. He was told to take the receipts to the office in Whangamomona, but did not do so, as it was usually dai'k when he finished work. The S.M. : You should have come in and produced these receipts at the first hearing.

Defendant said he could not see the force of losing three days' pay over the matter.

The' S.M. explained to defendant that if he had proved payment expenses would have been allowed him. Mr Macalister argued that the debt had been assigned to Harris, that there was no proof of payment to Harris, that judgment had been given againsi Cronin for the amount, and that, therefore, Harris was entitled to an order.

The S.M. said it would be a serious matter to make an. order after defendant had produced a receipt showing that payment had been made. Mr Macalister said the receipt had been produced too late. Defendant was estopped from producing it. The S.M.; You are practically asking that the amount be paid a sec-

ond time. Mr Macalister: So far as my client is concerned there is no proof of the first payment. The S.M. said he failed to see how an order could be made regarding an amount which had already been paid. It seemed that Towler had rsweiveH the money, but had failed to nave the payment properly noted. Jiidgme.'t could not-be given in respect of a debt which did not exist. Mr Macalister asked for an adjournment to enable him to look into the evidence given by defendant. An adjournment till October 3rd was granted, judgment 2ro lifor tp supply cor duct money for defei>j>:t for the next healing.