ORDER UPHELD

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 130, 14 March 1935, Page 3

ORDER UPHELD

FULL COURT DISMISSES APPEAL. "ASPERSIONS ENTIRELY UNWARRANTED." (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 13. The hearing of the case of J. D. Sievwright y. Monteath, Ward and Company was resumed in the Full Court. J. 1). Sievwright, defendant in two former actions for slander and breach of contract respectively, issued a writ claiming £703 9s 3d damages from Monteath, Ward and Company, alleging maintenance and champerty in connection with the two actions against him. The defendants moved in chambers for Sievwright's action to be struck out as being frivolous and vexatious. On the grounds that (1) the action for slander against Sievwright by E. C. Boddie had succeeded, and (2) that the action of P. C. Boddie and others against J. D. Sievwright and otttt-rs bad been settled by the defendants after a preliminary point of law had been decided in favour of plaintiffs, Mi Justice Ostler struck out the otaremont of claim as disclosing no cause of action and as being frivolous and vexatious It was that order that Mr Sievwight, appearing in perso.ii, asked the Full Bench of the Court to review. Many Authorities Citid. The plaintiff continued nis address to tie Court and cited maiy authorities, lit was asked by Mr Justice Johnston to state what position he had in mind when citing.

To this he replied that the proposition was that the costs which he had to pay in the Boddie action were damages in the eyes of the law. . Mr Justice Johnston said that on this point the judgment of the House of Lords, was final. . The plaintiff answered: Something, perhaps, was the matter with the judges in that case. I do not think the Court, having knowledge of an illogical definition of the law, should be bound by it. , Mr Justice Johnston: We arc bound |, y it. Speaking for myself, I think it is perfectly logical. Tne plaintiff concluded his address as follows: "I am appealing, as an ordinary subject of the King, to the King's judges that the tacts of this case shall be laid before the public in the interests of the prolession and ot the judiciary an dthe common weal The court then intimated it did not wish to hear counsel for the defendants, but Mr C. H. Weston, K.C, intimated that lie wished to say a tew words. Hte said that tne action was one of considerable publicity so tar as ins clients were concerned. -Man> statements had been made by tne plaintiff which were not quite correct. , . , • • Mr Weston proceeded to give instances of these, and submitted that his clients had acted very honourable and veiy generously ill coming to the support ol a poor man in his quarrel with a rich one. The £7OO odd which Mr Sievwright had to pay was matte up of damages payable to Boddie, also foe costs and the expenses.and tees of his own solicitors, and not one penny of it had gone into the defendants' pockets. jyjr Weston criticised the pa»t actions of the plaintitt, and said that during the present case he had been discharging nis missiles behind the shelter of a court of law.

judgment of the Court. In delivering judgment, Mr Justice Reed said that Mr Justice Ostler, in the court below, had held that the plaintiff's statement of claim disclosed no cause of action. With that he fully agreed. A solicitor was perfectly entitled to provide money in assisting a client in litigation. It would be a uad day for poor people if that were not so." It was true that a. solicitor was not entitled to purchase the subject matter of a litigation, but he was entitled to take security over it for his costs. The defendants nad done nothing more than this, and this disposed of the allegation of champerty. So far as the allegation of maintenance was concerned, the plaintiff was blocked by the judgment in Seville v. the London Express Newspapers in the House of Lords. Subsequently the appeal should be dismissed. Mr Justice Johnston said he agreed in every respect with the judgment of Mr Justice Heed. In his opinion the aspersions case by the plaintiff on the defendants were entirely unwarranted, in view of the form of assignment taken by them. Mr Justice Fair concurred.