JUDGMENTS DELIVERED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10639, 12 July 1920, Page 3

JUDGMENTS DELIVERED

IN THE SUPREME COURT BY HIS HONOUR THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Reserved judgments ivere given h.\ His Honour, the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court on Saturday as follow: — A COUNCIL'S RIGHTS. In the case of the Public Trustee against the Inglewood Borough Council, His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff, and allowed the defendant council £7 7s costs. The action, which wa« brought by way of an originating summons, was in respect to tho sale of certain land, and the court was askod to determine whether the proceeds were payable to the general account of the council, under the Inglewood Borough Endowment Act, or to the Public Trustee. At the hearing Mr G. G. Rose appeared for the Public Trustee, and Mr j.F. E. Martin for the defendant borough. AN UNUSUAL CLAIM. In his judgment in tho case 7 of Miss Uonora Barry against the A.M.P. Society, and Messrs Dinnie and Lowrie, of Auckland, executors of the will of O. E. Hanson, deceased, His HonoUi said that the plaintiff claimed that she was the mortgagee of an insurance policy for £IOO issued by the society to one Charles Edward Hanson. In tho first instance an advance of £23 had been secured from the A.M.P. Society by the insured in 1905, and in 1914 h e mortgaged the policy to the plaintiff for an advance of £4O, which was "subject to 10 per cent, interest. For some considerable period the premiums were not paid, and the policy was kept alive out of th© surrender value. A notice was sent to the address of the insured in 1916 stating that tho overdue premiums amounted to £25 13s lid; that the balance of the surrender valu© was not sufficient to pay the premium, which fell due that nionth; and that if one premium of £1 7s 6d was not paid on or before January 31st, 1917, the policy would become void. The premium was not paid, and the contention of th© defendant society was that the policy became void. The contention of plaintiff was that although the surrender value was reduced to 6s Id on December 31st, 1916, tho policy was not void. The insured was committed to a mental hospital and died in October, 1917; and it was contended that no notice had been given to tho Public Trustee, who was acting as a committee of. the mental defective's estate. It was further contended that by the operation of tho Legislature Act, 1917, the provisions of tho Mortgage Ecstensichn Act wore extended to cover a case of this nature; that the society had made representation as to the lapse of the policy to the insured and not to tho plaintiff; that' an account, issued after the insured's death, stated that the policy would not lapse until January 31st, 1918. ;

His Honour held that there was no onus on the society to notify tho Public Trustee that tho premiums were due. A policy, he said, was not a mortgage, and the Mortgage Extension Act did not apply. A mortgage included an instrument or socurity granted over a policy, but the policy had lapsed, and the section of the Act was not applicable. Payment of the mortgage could not be enforced in any way different to the manner in whith payment of other mortgages were enforced. Again, the Act was not passed until October 31st, 1917, which was after tho insured's death and nine months after the policy had ? lapsed. The conditions of the society were that a policy could be revived within 13 months'of the lapsing date on the payment of the overdue premiums and tho production of a certificate of health by the insured, and those conditions had not, and could not, be complied with in view of the insured's circumstances. The plaintiff, in His Honour's opinion, had failed in her claim, and judgment would accordingly bo given lor the defendant socioty. At "the hearing Mr G. Hutchinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mi- A. W". Blair for the defendant. A DISPUTED TENANCY. In the case, John Henry Hooper, land agent, against Herbert Person itawson, dentist, in which the plaintiff claimed £l7 for the removal of a partition, counter and desk, £SO for detention- of account books, and £5Ol aa damages for breaking and entering premises on Lambton quay, His Honour gave judgment for the defendant, with costs according to scale. The plaintiff alleged that by an agreement, John Weir, of Lower Hutt,. made in July, 1917, with the defendant, Weir leased premises on Lambton quay at a weekly rental of £5 with a right of renewal under certain conditions, one was that if during tho second period tho defendant had not sold the propertly or desired to rebuild, tho lease was to bo renewed for a. further six months. This provision, howI ever, did not appear in tho agreement, but the plaintiff alleged that it was an oral one. and was binding Weir and plaintiff entered into partnership. Weir sub-let portion of tho premises to Bruce Howe, and when the partnership was dissolved on January 7th, 1918, Weir's interest in tho lease was assigned to plaintiff. On February 28th, 1919, plaintiff found that his office had been broken into, a partition removed, and the interior fittings interfered with. The defenco was that the plaintiff, had been given notice of tho tenancy, and advised to leave the premises on January 19th, 1919. Tho notice was not complied with, and defendant authorised Howe to take possession, which ho did, and informed the plaintiff -that ho was at liberty to remove his property, but he declined to do so. At the hearing Mr G. Hutchinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. W. Blair for th» defendant.