INVOLVED TRANSACTION

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 23 May 1928, Page 6

INVOLVED TRANSACTION

OVER SOUTH TARANAKI FARM. ACTION IN SUPREME COURT. DEFENDANTS CONSENT TO JUDGMENT.

(SPECIAL TO “THE STAR.") The hearing of 'the case of B.- L. Joll v. A. C. Pease and G. Preece. in which a claim was made for £9OO allegedly wrongfully paid by \the trustee' in the assigned estate ot J oil to the defendants, came to an abrupt ending in the Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon, when, after a short adjournment m the “proceedings, counsel for the defendants (Mr A. K. North) intimated: that a settlement had been arrived at and that the defendants would consent to judgment. The settlement was accepted by Mr W. H. Treadwell, who with Mr R. H. Quilliam) appeared for the iplakutiff. EVIDENCE CONTINUED: Continuing liis evidence after the luncheon' adjournment, the defendant Preece dealt with 'the change; in the account ait September, 1922. Inoonnertiou with this he met' Joll and told him of the closing of Moreland’s account, and that it was a case of finding the money or signing a new guarantee. He jrointed' but the new account was in Pease’s nainp, as lie- could get thie money at a cheaper rate of interest. A sum of £IOOO was paid on 'account; of one of the original mortgages on the property and. a sum of £720 was also paid, but witness could not remember .vhait that was for. After Joll’s assignment, two sums of ,£2OOO each were paid in respect of mortgages on the property. l'o His Honour: These sum® were round equally between Pease- and witness. - Continuing, he said the pa.ymmt- of £9OO on. account of Moreland’s account was made in two or three' sums. He heard nothing about an indemnity to Joll until Quite late in the assignment proceeding®. \ . i Tb Mr Tread well: The account guaranteed for Moreland Bros, was not an ordinary guarantee farming account. To all intents and purposes Joll camie in to'the guarantee to help' finance Moreland Bras. His Honour: Why—couldn’t you getthe money without him ? ' . Witness; Well, not exactly that. The - money was required . to- enable Morelands to finance tlieir undertaking. He ' had got £SOO commission, arid cur profit® were problematical', and that was why he was asked to join the guarantee. ‘ Continuing to Mr Treadwell, the witness said Joll was standing in to the extent of a third in their liability to Malones. It was a bargain between Jo,l and witness, and at the time they did nob think there was much risk. He admitted to counsel that Joll was getting none of the securities, and that Joll was told the money was for t/lue purpose of paying out Malones! He denied telling JoLl that he would be under no liability as between himskf and witness under the guarantee. Examining 'bh-e account., counsel asked witness if Joll agreed to the payment of the Pease and • Preece debt- to Malone of £3200,' and the repry was that that was what the account was guaranteed for. though Joll was not actually consulted about the items in the account. He admitted Jo IPs commission was paid out of the account. WherL .the bank called upon them to reduce the advance at the end of the first 1 year, they did not cawl upon Joll for a thud .'■hare. At that time thing® had been so good that they never expected the account to get into difficulties. It may have been an oversight. His Honour: If everything had gone all right and you had got your profit, wa,s Joll to get any share of it?

Witness: There was no arrangement as to that. His Honour: It was a case “Heads I win, tails you lose.” Witness: It was that all the way through the piece at those times. Mr Treadwell: Isn’t the position this: You have taken £9OO out of Joll for the purpose of paying him £SOO commission and pocketed the other £400?

Witness: We haven’t got the £4OO in our pecket. Mr Treadwell: Do you consider that honest ?

Witness: It was part of the bargain. Counsel: Do you consider it honest? .V •

Witness: Yes; under the circumstances. '■ W. G. Walkley, accountant to the trustee in Joll’s assignment, said that at the first meeting of creditors the (luestion of his contingent liability on Moreland’s account .was mentioned. Witness knew nothing of any indem-. nit’v. He then gave particulars as to how the £9OO settlement was arrived at. ‘ _ ( After cross examination by_ Mr Treadwell a short adjournment was taken and when the court resumed, it was anounced that the defendants hadagreed to consent to judgment- on the ground that the money had been erroneously paid by the trustee in good faith, defendants believing they were entitled to prove in the estate. Judgment was formally entered for ,fch-3 amount claimed, £9OO, and on his Honour’s suggestion the claim for interest Mas waived. Costs according to scale with expenses and disbursements were allowed, with fifteen guineas for the second day, and ten guineas per day for second -counsel. His Honour expressed satisfaction with the terms of the settlement.