PALMERSTON NORTH SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3002, 26 September 1908, Page 7

PALMERSTON NORTH SUPREME COURT.

GREENHATCH v. MACDONALD. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. In the Supreme Court at Palmerston North on Tuesday, before .Vr J uatice Denniston, an action brought by Frederick Greenhatch, of Eketahuna, contractor, against Donald Mac Donald, of Eketahuna, sawmiller, was heard. Mr W. Lockhart Fitzhetbcrt, instructed by Mr P. B. Fitzherbert, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr E. Page for defendant. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff and defendant had entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff was to and haul timber from the defendant's bush "to the deienJant's mill at an agreed, price per iOUi't, and that the measurement of truber was to be taken as on the quantity of sawn timber issuing from the mill. The defendant was to aupply horses, bullocks and working gear for the plaintiff 'a work. The t3im of the agreement was three ytt-rs. The statement of claim also alleged that the defendant had committed various breaches of the agreement; that he had wrongfully interfered with the plaintiff in his work; | that he'had failed to cut the timber to the best advantage; and that he had in various ways prevented the plaintiff from contiuuing his con tract, Wherefore the plaintiff prayed—- \ 1. Recission of the i ontract. 2. Damages £3OO for breach of contract. 3. The sum of £45 for moneys due for cutting. The defence was a general denial of the allegations in the statement of claim. Mr Fitzhurbert, for plaintiff, opened the case, and detailed th 9 circumstances and the grounds of the claim. After plaintiff's opening, Mr Page, for defendant, submitted that the pleadings and counsel's openings did not concur, and that the pleadings did not disclose any cause of action. The Court could not,.order a recission of a contract of this Port, and until there had been a recission no actiorr for damages would be heard. Plaintiff's counsel was setting up a differ- > ent case to that shown on the pleadings. < His Honor agreed that the Court had no power to rescind a contract of this sort on account of any breaches. The only cases in which Courts would do so were in cases of mistake. Mr Fitzherbert stated that hs could show that the contract had been expressly repudiated by the defendant. His Honor stated that the pleadings did not disclose this, and that they should do so. He would, however, allow the plaintiff to call evidence in support of the statements of counsel. Greenhatch, the plaintiff, stated that he had made the agreement alleged. The defendant had on. various occasions interfered with him and his workmen. At the end of July he got a cheque for the July cutting, and complained about ; some of the cutting. Defendant pro- ! mired to see about it. On the Ist of August he went to the mill, but it was not working. He then went to Dannevirke to consult a solicitor, •who at once wrote to defendant telling him to take over control of the bullocks and horses, as an action was being brought in the Supreme Court. At Ihis stage His Honor intimated that he did not see how plaintiff could establish his case. He was asking for £3OO damaged for breach of a contract which he had himself repudiated. His Honor was satisfied that he had no proper grounds for repudiating. The only question left was as to an amount owjng for, cutting, and . no proof was offered to substantiate the claim. ' After hearing considerable legal argument, His Honor said that plain- I tiff would be nonsuited, with costs ; on the middle scale; disbursements ; and witnesses' expenses to be fixed by | the Registrar. j