A HEARING OPPOSED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19969, 10 December 1926, Page 10

A HEARING OPPOSED.

INSUFFICIENT NOTICE. LENGTHY LEGAL ARGUMENT. COUNSEL’S PLEA DISREGARDED. (Special to Daxls Times.) AUCKLAND, December 8. One day in November of last year John P. Robinson, of Kawhai, brought his motor oar to Auckland and left it at W. J. Rushton and Co.’s for repairs and sale. He handed' over the car to a youth, who said he was the principal of the firm. The owner said he would return in a few weeks to find out the result of the sale. For the next few weeks the youth thoroughly enjoyed himself with this car, and succeeded in damaging it to the extent of £6O Upon the owner’s return, he was informed by the firm that his car had not been left with them. Inquiries soon elicited information that finally led to the arrest of the youth. He was admitted to probation for two years, and ordered to make restitution. The matter did not rest there, however, for in October of this year Rushton and Co. were notified that_ Robinson was making a claim against them for £2OB damages through the negligence of one of their servants. A writ was issued in Hamilton, but a change of venue was applied for and granted to Auckland, and the case came before Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court this morning Mr P. L. Hollidgs appeared for the rfaintiff and Mr Goldstine for the defer d “I ,sh to oppose the hearing of this case,” said Mr Goldstine, ‘“and would point outjhat the circumstances leading up to the hearing are somewhat extraordinary ” Counsel said that the writ was issued in Hamilton, and a summons for a change of venue came before Mr Justice Herdman at Hamilton. His Honor was satisfied that it was a proper case for a change of venue, and accordingly made the order. On the application of Mr HolHngs, it was set down for hearing at the present session at Auckland, providing a fixture could be made. Seven days were granted in which to file the statement of defence. “I received a letter from Mr Hollings,” continued counsel, “tc the effect that he was going to get a fixture, and I heard nothing more until I was notified that it was to be taken this morning. No answer was received until this morning, and I am not in a position to proceed with the case. In view of the extraordinary claim, 1 notified my friend on two occasions that I was not ready to proceed, and advised him that it would be unnecessary for him to come to Auckland, I submit that it is unreasonable to expect the case to proceed. _ Mr Hollings: The plaintiff, his witnesses and myself have travelled 200 miles. His Honor: It does not matter how far voii have travelled. Mr Hollings: A move to block the trial was foiled in Hamilton, and His Honor: It should not have been brought in Hamilton. The affair took place in Auckland. Mr Hollings: I consented to a change of venue to Auckland on condition that it be tried this session. His Honor: You issued the writ in October, and, first of all, you started in the wrong court; and secondly,' it is something that happened 11 months ago. Mr Hollings: I consented to the order. His Honor: You could not have refused to consent. Mr Hollings: We have come 200 miles, including 50 miles over a mud road. 1 dori’t know whether your Honor knows the road from Kawhia to Hamilton, but it is the worst in New Zealand. The plaintiff and his witnesses are here, and 1 can see the defendant in court. There is no real reason why the case should not proceed. It will bo a short one. taking only two or three hours.

His Honor: That is not the question. Mr Holliugs pointed out that he had 10 days to comply with the order, and that he had done so before his time was up. The matter, he contended, was one of » series of attempts to block the case from going to trial. He again referred to the bad road he had come oyer, and said he did not want to do it again, as it involved considerable expense and discomfort. The plaintiff was a service car driver, and during his absence the service from Kawhia to Hamilton was held up, thus causing considerable '"nconvenience to the residents. His Honor: This is an action in which a writ was issued in October Claiming for something, (hat occurrerd in November 1925. The action was brought in the wrong court, and, that being so, it_ wa* discretionary with the presiding judge whether the writ v should be struck out or a change of venue made. The latter course was followed. The plaintiff is not entitled to rush the defendant in a case such as this. He had ample notice from the defendant that the ease could not go on, and in the circumstances I will adjourn the matter until next session.