COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21688, 5 July 1932, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL

ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 4. In the Appeal Court case the New Zealand Law Society versus P. Gilfedder, on the application of counsel for Gilfedder, the hearing was adjourned till the next sitting, an order being made suspending Gilfedder from practising in the meantime. Hearing of the case of the Law Society versus Leahy was adjourned till July 13.

RECOVERY OF WAGES WRIT OF PROHIBITION SOUGHT. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 4. In the case of the New Zealand Sheepfanners’ Agency, Ltd. v. Mosley and Hill argument was resumed before the Court of Appeal this morning. Counsel for the appellant company submitted that the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court so far as they existed against the company were defective and therefore the magistrate (Mr E. D. Mosley) had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In any event his action in giving judgment against the appellant company without giving it an opportunity to be heard was contrary to the principles of natural justice, and the company was entitled to a writ of prohibition. Although the magistrate expressed the opinion that the interests of the defendant Cook and the appellant company, of which he was managing director, were the same, Cook and the agency were in law different persons. Their defences were . entirely different, and it was the duty of the magistrate to offer an adjournment to the company in order to allow its defence to be heard. He contended further that Cook, even though managing director, was a defendant in the original proceedings, and had no authority to consent to a joinder and so shift the responsibility on to the Shecpfanners Agency, Ltd. Further, it was clear that the appellant company had not been afforded any real opportunity of being heard and that therefore the court had no jurisdiction to enter judgment against it. Counsel for the respondent contended that the conduct of the magistrate was not contrary to natural justice, as the appellant company could have asked for an adjournment to prepare its defence. If there was any error at all, it was purely an, error of procedure, the remedy for which was an application for a rehearing or an appeal, and not a writ of prohibition. As the error or defect was not apparent on the face of the proceedings the jurisdiction of the court was not affected. Finally, the appellant had allowed a period of nearly six weeks to elapse between the date of the hearing and the date of judgment without taking any steps to have the matter reopened, thereby waiving his right to a writ of prohibition. The hearing was adjourned.