SALE OF KAURI RIKAS.

Northern Advocate, 19 December 1922, Page 7

SALE OF KAURI RIKAS.

k LOWE v. DEPUTY OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. Judgment was delivered in the Whangarei Magistral's Court, yesterday in the ease heard on December 12 in which Roy A. Lowe (Mr T. Clifton Webb) sought to recover £84 4s from the Deputy Official Assignee (Mr. J. F. S. Briggs) on a claim in connection with tire bankrupt estate of Henry Spring. The plaintiff alone gave evidence, no testimony being submitted . on behalf of the defendant. For the purposes of the judgment, Mr F. H. Levien, S.M., wrote that it was unnecessary to state other than the following facts: — The plaintiff, to whom Spring was indebted, purchased from Spring certain kauri rikas, and sold them, Spring being present, to the Public Works Department, through Mr Hunter, a departmental official at Is per foot, the total price being £84 4s. Hunter told plaintiff to call and receive payment four days later at the Public Works Department office at Dargaville. When he called on the day mentioned he was told to call again two days later. He did so but was told that an attachment order had been issued against the moneys which were apparently in the name of Spring in the books of the Public Works Department, although Hunter had indicated to plaintiff that the money would be in his name. The attachment order had, in fact, been issued by plaintiff's solicitor in his favour, lie having previously obtained a judgment against Spring. Some time later, under advice from the Public Works Department office at Dargaville, plaintiff came to Whangarei to endeavour to expedite payment of the £84 4s. While in Whangarei plaintiff heard that Spring had been adjudged a bankrupt. Upon the adjudication the Public Works Department apparently paid the £84 4s at least to the Deputy Official Assignee.

The questions raised at the hearing which called for consideration upon the facts, stated the Magistrate, were answered as follows: —There was a complete contract for sale and purchase between the plaintiff and the Public Works Department through Hunter, the agent of the department. To succeed in the present claim the plaintiff must prove privity of contract between himself and the Deputy Official Assignee, either express or implied. The contract mentioned was between Lowe and the Public Works Department, neither Spring nor the Deputy Official Assignee being parties to it. Under such circumstances plaintiff was non-suited, with costs '£4 4s to defendant.