QUESTION OF TITLE

Evening Post, Volume XC, Issue 88, 12 October 1915, Page 8

QUESTION OF TITLE

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Law points concerned with the case of Maurice Manthel, of Wellington, electrical engineer, plaintiff, v. Arthur Bolton, settler, Walter Arthur Hawkins, Registrar of the Supreme Court, and E. Johnston and Co., auctioneers, Wellington, were argued at the Supreme Court 'to-day, before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Cooper. The case was originally heard before the Chief Justice and a jury of twelve, and was adjourned in order that it might come before three Judges for consideration of the points of law involved. The claim is for £501 for alleged misrepresentnAion of title. The statement of claim sets out that plaintiff is the owner of a section of land fronting Courtenayplace and Cambridge- terrace, subject to mortgages held by Arthur Luxford Johnson for £1500 and to the defendant for £1500. On the 31st May, 1915, it was alleged the defendant Arthur Bolton published to the Registrar and other persons in a, statutory decUxation filed in the Supreme Court the statement that plaintiff had made default in the payment of the principal money due and payable on the security of the deed of mortgage. That statement, it was further alleged, was false and malicious, and was made without lawful justification or excuse. The statement of claim further set out that, acting on that statutory declaration, the Registrar accordingly consented to conduct the sale of the property by auction, and the defendant Bolton advertised the fact that the sale was to take place and the reasons therefor. The plaintiff complained that his credit and reputation had thereby been injured, and he claimed the sum of £250 general damages and the sum of £251 for special damages. The statement of defence set out that the statements in the statutory declarations were true in substance and fact, arid were made by him in good faith and without malice and upon a privileged occasion, and that the provisions of 'the Mortgages Extension Act did not apply to the special ch-cumstances of the case. Mi-. W. Myers, with him Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb, appeared for the plaintiff. and Mr. 0. P Skerrett, X.C.. with him. Mr. Rothenberg. for the defendants. Argument had not concluded when The Post went to press.