LOAN FOR WAGES.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1922, Page 6

LOAN FOR WAGES.

THE PHOENIX MOTORS CASE. REHEARING REFUSED. The case of Ivy Feakins v. The Phoenix Motors Limited, reached finality at the Magistrate s Court. New Plymouth, on Saturday, when Mr. A. M. Mowlem. S.M., refused an application by the defendants for a rehearing o‘f the case. The case has been -several times before the Court, and the facts were that Miss Feakins had advanced to George Washbourne the sum of £l4 15s with which to pay wages. The loan was given during the transition stage in the taking over of Wa-shbourne’s motor business by the defendant company, and the question at issue was whether Washbourne was then the servant of the company, and had borrowed the money on their behalf or whether he was the proprietor and had obtained the lr> n n for his own purposes. The hearing lasted three days, and was responsible for some passages at arms between the Bench and defending counsel (Mr. C. H. Croker) as to the admissibility of certain evidence and the rejection of other evidence. Tn a lengthy judgment delivered a little over a month later, Mr. Mowlem found in favor of the plaintiff, for whom Mr. C. H. Weston appeared, with costs. Mr. Croker immediately made application for leave to appeal, and this was -pfused. On October 4he was granted a stay of proceedings, and on Saturday Mie application for a rehearing was heard. The application contended that evidence was admitted which should have been rejected, and that the reverse process had obtained with regard to other evidence which he desired to lay before the Court, and that his Worship was unconsciously biassed or prcj'idiced against the defendant company. The points which he had raised were reviewed at length by Mr. Croker, and legal authorities in support were quoted. After Air. "Weston bad replied, Air Mowlem intimated that, since the application had been made,' he bad careful’y gone through the whole ease again ai.-l could not alter his decision. No new matter had come up which would warrant him in granting a rehearing, and be had considered the case to the best of his ability on the facts before the Court. Finality had to be reached in all cases, and the law had provided for finality in the Magistrate’s Court Act. The application was dismissed, with £2 2s costs to the plaintiff’s solicitor.