HOW LAW COSTS MULTIPLY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 64, 16 March 1915, Page 9

HOW LAW COSTS MULTIPLY.

A CATTLE DEAL. AND WHAT CAME OF IT. tßy Telegraph.—Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, this day. An idea of the ease and rapidity with which law costs multiply, was given in a case recently heard before Mr. E. Raweon, STH., at Kawhia, in which \V. B. W. McAdam, farmer, of Kawa, was plaintiff, and defendant, Hone Te Anga, of Kaputuhi.

On July 5. 1911, ttefendant sold twenty-one cattle to plaintiff at £3 15/ per head, including five, which, unknown to either party, belonged to one Hughes. On the same day plaintiff sold the cattle to one Skelton. About the end of May, 1912, Hughes claimed the cattle from the plaintiff, and subsequently from Skelton. On August 31, 1912, Skelton, although he knew of Hughes' <-iaim, sold them to Luxmore Bros. On November 19, 1912, Hughes removed the fire cattle from Luxmores' possession. Luxmores' sued Skelton in the Magistrate's Court, at Te Kuiti, for £33 15/, the value of the cattle, under the '"implied warranty of title and lor quiet possession." The action was removed, on tne application of Skelton, into the Supreme Court. Tiie plaintiff, McAdam, was joined as a third Jarty, and defendant as a fourth. The action was not defended as judgment was given for the Luxmores on June 25, 1914, for £33 15/ and costs £24 1/2. Skelton then sued McAdam in the Magistrate's Court, Te Kuiti, for these Bums, £13 loss of profit on the bullocks, £2 11/ expenses incurred in attending the Supreme Court, £28 16/4 solicitor's and client's costs, and £10 general damages, a total of £112 3/6. Judg- ] ment was given 'by consent on October 13, 1914, for the amount, and costs £10 8/6. The present action was in turn brought by plaintiff against the defendant, Te Anga, claiming £112 3/6 and £10 9/6 costs, £ 2 5/ expenses attending | the Supreme Court, £17 17/ solicitor' and* client costs, and £10 general -amazes, a total of £152 15/2.' |

"The magistrate, in giving judgment at Hamilton to-day, held that Skelton acted improperly in re-selling the goods after notice of Hughes' claim, and that the case must be treated as though he had, on discovering the defect in his title, sued McAdam without taking the Supreme Court proceedings. The defendant was only liable to the extent of £33 15/, the value of the cattle at the time they were claimed by Hughes. The claim of £10 damages was not substantiated, end judgment would be entered for plaintiff "for £33 15/ and costs.