UNPAID INTEREST

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 September 1936, Page 4

UNPAID INTEREST

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS

X claim for £l7B, as interest due to May 1, 1936, at 5 per cent., on a mortgage oil £2550, was made in the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth, yesterday afternoon, by David Hugh Roberts and Isabella Brown (Mr J. W. Hannan), against William McVicar, Loftus McVicar, Duncan Angus McVicar, and Arthur William Mackley, as guarantors of the mortgage, the mortgagor being A. J. Palmer. Under instructions from Mr L. E. Morgan, of Reefton, Mr A. H. Paterson appeared for defendants.

It was stated that Duncan Angus McVicar had not been served. Mr Hannan applied for judgment against Mackley, and contended that he was entitled to do so, as the mortgage was guaranted, jointly and severally, by each of the guarantors. The principal was still unpaid. Mr Paterson applied for an adjournment on the ground that an application had been lodged by D. A. McVicar, for his evidence to be taken at Rcefton.

Mr Hannan objected, on the ground that the application was only an excuse to gain time.

Evidence regarding the mortgage was given by A. Mosley and D. 11. Roberts.

Mr Paterson said that liability was admitted, but he contended that it was an abuse of the process of- the Court, that plaintiff should be allowed to take judgment against only mie of the guarantors. If he did obtain judgment, it would not be worth the paper it was written on.

.Mr 11. Morgan, S.M.: ’Phen why object to him taking judgment? Mr Paterson: No one likes to see his name in the paper. '1 he S.M.: He could have confessed it.

Mr Paterson said that a stay order had been made, and his client could seek protection under the mortgage I' gislation. Judgment should not be given against only one of the defendants. | The SAL: Is it an abuse of the Court for plaintiff to get his rights, so far as he can, in the matter? .Mr Paterson: It is a barren right, and of no use to him. Tho S.M.: Then your client liasnothing to complain about. Mr Paterson said that undesirable publicity would be given, but the S.M. said he did not know he could do anything in that matter. Mr Paterson repeated it seemed to him that the whole thing was an abuse of the process of the Court. He quoted authorities bearing on the point. The S.M. said it was quite clear that the Court had authority to refuse judgment, if there were any abuse of procedure. In this case, there was no

abuse by the plaintiffs, but he was not satisfied that the application by one of the defendants, for evidence to be taken at Reefton, was not an abuse, and not made for the purpose of causing delay. Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment. He asked Mr Hannan whether he desired judgment against Mackley only, or against all three of the defendants. Mr Hannan said that he would prefer a triple judgment, and he called' C. McGinley, to give formal evidence. The S.M. gave judgment for plaintiffs against W. McVicar, L. McVicar, and A. W. Mackley, for £l7B, with Court costs £l/10/-, and solicitor’s fee £9/18/-.