COSTS OF LITIGATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19469, 27 October 1926, Page 16

COSTS OF LITIGATION.

RACING CLUB GUARANTORS, AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT. [by TELEGHATH. —OWN CORtIiCSPONr>ENX. ] HAMILTON, Tuesday. The litigation which arose following the formation of the Morrinsrille Racing Club and the Bank of New Zealand's action in calling up the joint and several guarantee when the club failed to secure a racing permit was advanced a further stage to-day, when, a reserved judgment given by Mr. Justice Stringer was read in the Hamilton fsupreme Court. The judgment referred to a motion brought on behalf of Daniel "Wilfred Jones and William Sprott, farmer, Morrinsville (Mr. E. McGregor), to set aside a judgment obtained by Henry Manuel and others (Mr. C. McDavitt), in connection with a joint and several guarantee given by plaintiffs and defendants to the bank on behalf of the Morrinsville Racing Clulj. Plaintiffs had sued the defendants and others for contributions in respect of the guarantee and judgment had beeu obtained by default for individual amounts, together with a joint and several judgment for the costs of the action, which were allowed at £207 17s 6d. The plaintiffs had called upon Jones and Sprott to pay the balance due for costs, £l5O, and a motion was brought by the two defendanst to have thu judgment set aside so far as it related to these costs, and to their joint and several liability for costs. In his reserved decision the Judge stated that the authorities appeared to show that the judgment was right in awarding a joint and several judgment for costs and that the defendants who were called uptin to pay had a right to recover a proportion from the co-defend-ants. With regard to the amount of costs allowed, a mistake appeared to have been made. Tho judgment was for costs as per scale, and it was wrongly assumed that the amount involved in the action was the whole amount paid by plaintiffs to the bank under the guarantee, £3522. The amount really involved was the proportion only of tho amount paid by the filaintiffs, which tho defendants "were iable to contribute, £1774 6s Bd, of which latter amount judgment was given against defendants. His Honor therefore thought that tho judgment should be amended by reducing the costs by £55 13s, being the excess fee allowed for the trial, and that the following provision should be added to tho judgment, "and leave is further reserved to the defendants or any of them to take further accounts as to their respective liabilities as between themselves or as between them or either of them and tho plaintiffs." As the motion was only partially successful, the Judge mado no order as to costs on it as against plaintiffs. The defendants, who moved, had a right to recover a proportion of the costs incurred by them from tho other defendants in the action.