PAID TO AGENTS

Evening Star, Issue 19614, 21 July 1927, Page 2

PAID TO AGENTS

AH UNUSUAL CLAIM [I’lR United Press Association.] .WELLINGTON, July 20. . A case with unusual features, in that a claim was made for money that had already been paid, was heard before Mr Justice -Reed in the Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiff was the Sopwitb Aviation and Engineering Company, Limited (in voluntary liquidation), and the defendants were the Magnus Motors, Limited, Wellington. It was stated that the Sopwith Company, engineers and aeroplane manufacturers, of Surrey, England, on Eebruary 1, 1920, entered info an agreement to supply motor cycles and spare parts to the Magnus Motors, Limited. The agreement was negotiated through Messrs W. Bolus and Co., Limited, London, who acted as buying agents:for the Magnus Motors. Uner the agreement the Sopwith Company delivered goods to Bolus and Co., as agents for the Magnus Motors, to the value of £73.0 Payment was to bo made in London within seven days of the date of the invoice; but the Sopwith Company said that neither the Magnus Motors nor their agents had satisfied the amount. On March 2-1, 192-1, judgment was entered by default for £7lO against the Magnus. Motors in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England. The Sopwith Company claimed for the amount ageordiugly. The Magnus Motors, in defence, admitted that the goods were shipped to them by Messrs Bolus and Co.; but said that Messrs Bolus and- Co. had been paid for the goods. If the Sopwith Company had not been paid then Bolus and Co were liable to the Sopwith Company, and not the Magnus Motors. Further, the defendants said that if it was proved that an agreement was entered into, notwithstanding its terms, the Sopwith Company looked to Bolus and Co. as debtor in respect of any goods ordered and eventually consigned by Bolus and Co. to the Magnus Motors The whole course of dealing tween the parties showed that the Sopwith Company considered Bolus and Co its debtor in the transactions.

Counsel for the plaintiff contended that it was the duty of the Magnus Motors as debtors to seek out their creditors and pay them. Counsel for the defendants raised two points on which ho asked for a nonsuit. He said that there was no proof of liquidation. There was merely a bald statement which, ho said, was insufficient. On the merits of the case, he said, he was entitled to a nonsuit or to judgment. Decision was reserved, and the nonsuit point was also reserved for further evidence to bo called it necessary.