Claim for £100 Deposit.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7959, 24 October 1905, Page 2

Claim for £IOO Deposit.

On Monday the S.M. gave his reserved judgment in the case of Burr v. lScwlcy ami Griffiths.

The Magistrate said tlic statement of claim alleged an agreement between Hie plaintiff and Albert Arthur Tikett for the exchange.of certain properties' and that by that agreement Pikett and Burr deposited with the defendants, Bcwley and Griffiths, the sum of £IOO, which was to , become forfeited by the party through whose neglect or default the agrceshould not he completed. The statement of claim then alleged that Pikett having failed fo complete the agrei'ment the deposit became forfeited lo the pUinbiff.who had duly claimed the same from the defendants. Hew ley and Griffiths, for whom Mr Quilliam appeared, slated that they simply occupied the posit toa of stake holdeis, and left it lo the decision the Court whether the plaintiff, Burr, was entitled to the money as against* Pikett, who was originally joined with them as a defendant. Mr Rov, for the defendant Pike lb, had claimed a nonsuit as regarded his c'ieiit oru I he. ground that' the statement of claim showed no cause of action againsl )rim. After evidence and discussion Mr Anderson, who appeared for the pluinliiff, in order lo give effect tio Mr Hoy's conlcnUbn elecUJl to lie nonsuited as against Pikett, who (hen disappeared from the proceedings. The case then went on asi against the defendants, BeWley and Griffiths, alone. Obviously the Court was al a great disadvantage bv.lhis course, because the only view 'of the transaction presented was the plaintiffs, as the defendauls were absolutely i|iiiesceiit in the matter. When plaintiff asked for judgment, Mr Roy sought to have I'ikelt joined as a third party. The S.M. pointed out, however, that Pikett Was no longer a party and had no standing to app'v lo l.e joined. The Chief Justice's ruling as to third parlv procecdurc was lo iJi,. effect n uU a Court should Join a pel sen (not a pa i|y | 0 the aelion) against whom an original defendant might l, a ve a rj,], t , )Vl , r [()| . cciitrihulioiii, „r imlemniiv. Tlks pro c-cdurc, however, had no appl cation in the present case for the defendants Hcwley aiwl.firiflilhs, ha.l m>t and .li.i, i ""I Pretend to have anv right of i„deinnily against I'iketl. The S M n'milked tliai tlu- position was, a pec. ll ; u . "»e- •» give judgment for the Planiliff, Burr, would'eerlainlv ,„'■„. l "' i ,"' l ' and he (the K.M) w, s 1» si,.-, llin«{ sum, s ih,ur* wintld "" l shut mil finally and tonrlusivciv any daun he mighl l UV e lo (he ml ■n;v m dispute. The Magislrate.there<"iii I ought („ reinstate I'ikelt and '■"" Kill e should consent lobe jo on pavil „ ' "l the previous day's hearing An order |o this elfecl wa" s ,„„-,,., ad ~P, P Ilrarillß ;u ,,; 0lll , 1Ml , 0 prj(l^.