LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2550, 26 August 1915, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT - I CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES An action arising out of the advertising of what -was termed a "sale by mortgage" was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff was MauTico llanthel, qlectrician, AYtallington, and the defendants. were Arthur, Bolton, settler, Wellington; Walter Arnold Haw.Registrar of the Supreme Court, Wellington; and E. Johnston and Co., auctioneers, Wellington. The plaintiff's claim set. out that 801-1 toi falsely, maliciously, and without lawfill justification caused to lie inserted in Ihe Dominion of June 1, an advertisement of a "sale by mortgage" c-f llantnel's interest in. property in Courtenay llace. Plaintiff held that the words of the advertisement meant that, lie had made default under .a deed of mortgage, was 'unwilling or unable to pay his debts, and was not a. proper person to ba lent money on such security. Plaintiff 6aid that, in consequence, lie' had been injured 'in his credit and reputa-, ciou, and had suffered, serious damage to his business. Therefore, li« claimed from Bolton .£IOO damages in respect of publication in a declaration, mad® to the Registrar, and 'iE2SO general damages, and .£251 special damages in respect of the advertising of the "sale." Against all the defendants, plaintiff asked for an injunction restraining them from further advertising his interest, in the property for sale. Plaintiff' contended that the Registrar of the Supreme. Court, in consenting to conduct the sale, and by authorising the advertisement, and appointing Messrs. E. Johnston and Co. to offer the interest for sale, exceeded his duty. Defendant Bolton stated that Mauthel had made suck default in payment of the princpal sum secured by the mortgage as would, but for the provisions of the Mortgage Extension Act of 1914, have entitled defendant to exercise the power of 6ale, A question arose as to whether the act applied to the mortgage by reason of the provisions of! an Order-in-Council dated February-1, 1915, exempting agreements for the sale and purchase of leaseholds from ' the Act, and by reason that the-mortgage from the plaintiff was itself given in completion of such an agreement. The question Was submitted to tlio Registrar, who determined that the Act did not -apply ,to the mortgage, and that Bolton was entitled to proceed with the exercise of the power of sale. - Bolton had since been advised - that the mortgage was not exempt from the Act, and that he was prevented from exercising tlie power of 6ale. Bolton, therefore, submitted to the injunction, and was willing to pay the costs of the action up to the service of the writ, but he contested the claim for damages. The case was taken before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert' Stout) and a jury of. twelve. Mr. M; Myers,. with liiin Mr. 0. R. Mazengarb, appeared for the plaintiff, and the defence was represented by Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with whom was Mr. V W. L. Rothenberg. The hearing was not concluded when the Court adjourned till this morning. UNITED SERVICE HOTEL CASE; Hearing was concluded of the caso concerning the-United Service Hotel (Christchurch) transaction. Joseph and Mrs. Mandel, hotelkcepei's, and Hole, Gi'iei'son, and Davis, brewers at Tiinani, claimed the return of iISOO deposit money from A. D. Kennedy and Co., of Wellington; into whose hands the matter of effecting a sale of the hotel had been placed. Kennedy arid Co. counter-claimed <£700 commission. Questions were submitted to the jury, and these, with the jury's answers, follow: _ Question: "Was there an express stipulation niade between A. D. Kennedy and Joseph. Mandel that no commission should be payable to the defendant until the purchaser' had completed his purchase by entering. into possession of the United Service Hotel Answer: "No." Question: "Was there an agreement made between Joseph Mandel and A. D. Kennedy that .if a. commission became payable the commission would be .£SOO not ,£7oo?"—Answer: "Yes; .£500." Counsel in the case were Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Campbell, of Timaru, for the plaintiffs; ana Sit John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. O. E. Beere, for the defendants. ;