THRESHING CHARGES

Evening Post, Issue 2, 2 July 1932, Page 12

THRESHING CHARGES

APPEAL BY COMPANY

MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

Somewhat complicated facts were involved in an appeal, commenced before tho Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon. Tho appellant was tho New Zealand Sheepfarmers' Agency, Ltd., which appealed from a judgment tf Mr. Justice Adams delivered in Christchurch in January, dismissing an action brought by it against Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., and Charles Hill, of Burnham, farmer,; for a writ of prohibition preventing further proceedings on a judgment for £78 9s 6d obtained in the Magistrate's Court at Christch'urch by Hill against the company. The company claimed that the Magistrate had given it no opportunity of being heard in the action, or of calling evidence in its defence. -

The genesis of the litigation was a claim by AY. J. Bowman against Hill and Herbert Henry Cook, of Christchurch, a director of the New Zealand Sheepfarmers' Agency, Ltd., for the recovery of £69 6s 6d, for threshing charges. Judgment was given against Hill, who then sued Cook for the amount of the judgment given against him, and at the hearing of this action the Magistrate intimated that-Hill probably had sued the wrong person and should have sued the company. Cook's solicitor, after conferring with him.as the owner of the controlling shares in the- company, said he was authorised to consent to the company being joined as a defendant, but that another counsel would appear _f or it. The Magistrate thereupon joined the company and gave judgment against it. The next step was an application by the company in the Supremo Court for a writ of prohibition. This was refused by Mr. Justice Adams, from whose judgment the appeal is made.

Legal argument will be continued on Monday. :