SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12185, 9 July 1925, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS REGISTRAR'S RULING AMENDED. In the Supreme Court yesterday, the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, delivered reserved judgment in the case, in which Thomas Beaumont Dwnn and another appealed against the assessment of costa made by the Deputy-Registrar in the case. Quirk v. Dwan, The two items complained of were, first, the allowance of .£lO 10s. for the second statement of claim, and second, an allowance of .£55 for witness’s expenses. His Honour, in giving his judgment, said:— The case was a claim as originally launched by the plaintiff for a 6Um of .82500, with interest thereon and costs. The charge was that the defendants, as agents, bought for the plaintiff a hotel property for .£27,500, and in effecting such purpose secretly and corruptly received for themselves, through Jorgensen, the seller, the sum of £2500. 2 hat was the original claim. That wae amended bv claiming the said £2500. but on the ground that the defendants fraudulently and in breach of t'heir duty actually retained for their own use the sum of £2500. The defence was that this £2500 was received bv Dwan as commission on the sale of the property for £30,000. It was oiear that £2500 was received by the defendants, but they had a written agreement apparently with the owner that .they were entitled to £2500 as commission if they effected the sale for £BO,OOO. It seems to me that the amended statement of claim set ip a different claim than whet was in the first claim, and that therefore the second statement of defence was necessary, and I am of opinion that the Deputy-Regis-trar was right in allowing the costs of the amended statement of defence. The other item that was objected to was the travelling expenses of a witness brought from Victoria to give evidence ' in the ense. When the case came before the court there was produced the agreement between the defendants and the owner of the hotel which allowed this large sum of £2500 to be paid to the defendants ns commission. The witness that was brought from Victoria was k Lndv wTio had been a clerk to tjhe defendants, and it was contended thnt her evidence was necessary or was likely to i be necessary in the case. j I am of opinion, however, that it was I rot necessarv to have brought her from i Victoria without other steDs being taken i to see if her evidence or the effect of her | evidence could have been obtained with- , out cYiing to the great expense of fetch- j ing the witness from Victoria. There : are various courses that could have 1 een j adopted; there might have been interro-| gatories; there might have been an ap- ] plication for her to give her evidence 1 on affidavit, or there might have 1 een | also the production of the receipt which she was to prove, which production, 1 fh’nk. would have been sufficient without calling the witness at all. \ am of opinion that the bringing of the witness from Victoria w.a« therefore an unnecessary . expense, which the plaintiff should not I b© called upon to pay.