LAW DISAPPROVES

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 948, 15 April 1930, Page 1

LAW DISAPPROVES

FINANCING OF COURT CASE MORTON WINS ACTION “Xo case lias been cited that would justify me, however much I should like to be able to do it, in holding that Morton has such a common interest with the plaintiffs as would enable me to hold the agreement made, an enforceable one. All the cases show how the law discountenances maintenance.” With these comments, Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., found for F. S. Morton, in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, delivering judgment in the action for £72 taken by Frederick William Jeffers, Malcolm Turkington and George Wigg. Plaintiffs were suing Morton and J. K. Lundon for the costs they had to pay in prosecuting an unsuccessful action against the Auckland City Council some months ago. Judgment was given with costs. Giving judgment for Lundon also, the magistrate remarked that he did not know why he had been sued. In view of his financial position, plaintiffs had never looked to him for payment and, indeed, he had never held himself out as being responsible. The magistrate, recalling the facts, said the City Council reappointed to the Transport Board in May last Mr. J. A. C. Allum and five others. Lundon, who had explained that he could r.ot bring the action himself as he was on the City Council, had persuaded the plaintiffs to lend their names in an action to upset the appointment. The plaintiffs had agreed on the condition that no responsibility for costs should be upon them. The magistrate said he was sure plaintiffs’ .story of the interview with Morton was the correct one. Morton, giving them a cheque tor £26 6s, had apparently said he was worth £40,000, and there were others behind him. He had also assured his visitors that he realised they were accepting no responsibility for costs. The action had been lost. “Unfortunately for plaintiffs. Mr. R. N. Moody, counsel for Morton, raises a legal defence,” the magistrate continued. “He points out, and I must agree with him, if I find, as I do, that this agreement was made to pay the costs, it is unenforceable at law because it is a maintenance agreement.” Maintenance might be excused only if it sprang from kinship, service, charity, compassion or common interest. Mr. Lovegrove, for plaintiffs, had argued that Morton had a common interest with the plaintiffs because he also was an elector in the Transport Board area, but, according to authorities, that was not such a common interest as would excuse maintenance.