SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 June 1920, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

SITTING AT NEW PLYMOUTH. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice Sir Robert Stout.) An adjourned sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth was held yester, before his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), when the following matters were dealt with:— APPEALS. JAMES v. CROCKETT AND SMITH, The above was an appeal against the decision of Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., at New Plymouth under tlje Magistrate's Court Act in connection with a sale of property transaction from Mrs. Smith to James through Crockett, a land agent, the question being as to who should pay the commission. James had been joined in the case as a second defendant and judgment had been given hv the Magistrate in favnr of Crockett against Mrs. Smith, and also against Jame.3, under the equity and good conscience clause.

In the appeal Mr. C. IT- Croker appeared for James (the appellant), Mr. C. 11. Weston for Mrs. Smith, and Mr, Ronald 11. Quilliam for Crockett (the respondents).

Mr. Croker appealed on the ground that the Magistrate had 110 power to issue a third party notice, joining James in tlio action, and, if so, tlie case could no I succeed, as it would be a violation of the Statutes of Frauds and the Land Agents Act. He submitted that there had been no evidence on the part of appellant to pay commission to Crockett, and also that there was no authority for tlip. Magistrate to give judgment again-it -lames under the equity and good rnnsrienoe clause. Mr. Weston submitted that James having onec been joined there could be no appeal against that joining. He also submitted that under the equity and good conscience clause the Magistrate was entitled to disregard the two Acts referred to.

Mr, Qtiiiliam submitted that so far as the judgment. in favor of Crockett against Mrs. Smith was concerned it was good, and as that secured Crockett's rights he did not propose to add further to the arguments brought forward. His Honor intimated that he considered Crockett's judgment secure. Decision was reserved.

The appeal of A. C. McDonald v. H. D. Armour, against the decision of Mr. Wvvern Wilson, S.M., at Patea, under the Licensing Act, was adjourned till the next sessions. >

CLAIM IN RESPECT TO MACHINERY When the case of the Bonithon Freehold Petroleum Company (Mr. Blair, Wellington) v. P. A. Hadiev (Mr. C. 11. Croker) was called, defendant asked for an adjournment till the August sessions of ll'o Court, on account of illness and inability to attend. His Honor pointed out that no defence had been filed, and the case therefore was an undefended one. Mr. Croker, who appeared for an Auckland firm of solicitors, said that was probably accounted for by plaintiff's illness. The Judge'further remarked that defendant seemed able to he about and conduct some business, and he thought he could have given his solicitors instructions to defend. Mr. Blair said he did not wish to take advantage of defendant in any way. The plaintiffs' claim was for an interest in £4OOO, which was part of the price paid to Hndloy for certain plant and machinery which he had, and he also had the money. The Judge said having filed no defence, an adjournment could not he granted unless defendant paid the amount into court, with costs of the adjournment. Mr. Blair suggested that judgment should be entered for plaintiff unless the amount of claim with adjournment costs were paid into court.

His Honor said he never allowed an adjournment of a ease when tlie purposes were not bona fide. In this case it seemed to him not to be a bona fide application.

The case was allowed to stand down to permit Mr. Croker to communicate with his principals in Auckland in the matter. .

When the ease was called again after the luncheon, Mr. Croker said lie had agreed with Mr. Blair that judgment should he entered for plaintiffs unless the amount of the claim ( £1200) and costs were paid into court within fourteen days, or security for the amount, to the satisfaction of the registrar, lodged within the said fourteen days. The appeal of J?. Kilroy v. .Tessic V. M. Tapp, against the decision of Mr. T. A- B. Bailey, S.M., at Ilawera, under the Destitute Persons Act, was set down for 10 o'clock this morning. DIVORCE. The divorce case Clark v. Clark was also set down for hearing this morning, Mr. Croker, for petitioner, intimating that it would now be brought on as an undefended action.