SAMOAN APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 306, 20 September 1921, Page 7

SAMOAN APPEAL

THE FIRST OF ITS KIND NO APPEARANCE OF RESPONDENT The first appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Samoa sinco tho islands were placed under the control of New Zealand, camo before His Honour Mr. Justice Sim in tho Supremo Court, yesterday afternoon. Tho case was that of Francis Harman v. Richard Marggraff, relating to a breach of contract. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the appellant, the respondent not being represented by counsel.

Mr. Myors remarked on tho absence of any counsel for tho respondent. Before proceeding to argue tho appeal, ho intimated that full inquiries had been made in. practically all the legal offices in Wellington, in order to ascertain whether or not any council had been instructed for the respondent, lie 'had failed to find that any instructions had been received. Furthermore, ho had previously advised the Registrar of the High Court of Samoa, by wireless, to the effect ffiat ho intended to obtain a fixture for the argument of tho appeal within ono week from that date. Tho registrar had replied by wireloss stating that 'tho respondent intended to instruct counsel forthwith. "Sufficient time has passed to allow of that being done," said Mr. Myers, "as two mils have come to hand sinco.” His Honour decided to hear the appeal, and to postpone tho delivery of judgment until a further communication hud been sent to Samoa. If then the respondent was desirous of proceeding, tho appeal would bo argued. Tho case was an appeal against tho judgment of Chief Justice Watson, in reference to a claim for £2OO damages, brought by Harman against Marggraff. The Judge in Samoa held that tho agreement was an agency agreement, and that the plaintiff was acting, in reference to tho agreement, ns agent for the (respondent. He held 1 that the transaction was prohibited by ono of tho proclamations under the Samoan Constitution Order, 1920. Mr. Myers’s contention was that tbs relation between the parties was not that of principal and agent. Tho agreement was for tho sale and purchase of certain goods, a.nd os such counsel contended, was in no way affected or prohibited by tho proclamation. Ho contended that the; .(respondent had . ‘.not delivered tho goods, and had committed a breach of contract. He asked for judgment accordingly. His. Honour decided to allow tho respondent’ fourteen days in which to fuo an answer to the appellant.