CASES IN THE S.M. COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2318, 4 August 1898, Page 20

CASES IN THE S.M. COURT.

Daniel Haynes v. John Rymill Kemp (Bald Hill Flat). — Claim £56, for six months' interest, at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum, on £1400, lent by the plaintiff to the defendant on the security of a memorandum of mortgage. — Mr Brown-D.irie appeared for the plaintiff aud Mr W. C. MncGrogor for tho defendant. — In this case, which was heard on Friday, his Worship r.uo judgment as follows : —

This is a very hard case for the defendant. He sent £70 to Mr Hodgkins, believing, I hove no doubt, it was the same thing as sending it to Mr Haynes, but, as a matter oE fact, Mr Hodgkins had no authority to receive money for Mi Haynes, aud it was never paid lo him. The money was forwarded by Mr Kenip to Mr Iloclgkina in August, 1895, in respect to a transaction Mr ILiynes appears lo have hncl no knowledge of. In December, 1597, Mr Ilodgkins induced Mr Haynes to* execute a partial lelease of a mortgage, which he allowed Mr llodgkins to take away, under a promise to send Mr Haynes a cheque lor JE7O. He did nob do so, and sli Kemp was no doubt under (tie belief that Mr Hodgkins hncl paid the money, until two or three months ago tie was informed it had not been paid. In the first p'acc, Mr llodgkins had no authority to receive or collect money for Mr Haynes, and the oaso is clearly distinguishable from Gordon v. Janice (xxx. Cli. l)iv., 249). In that case the deed executed by Gordon v. Henderson contained a clause acknowledging the receipt of the consideration money (£1000), and a receipt was also endorsed upon the deed showing a full legal acquittance for tho amount. The document sigued. by JMx Haynea

as a partial release of ihe muitgage contains no acknowledgment of the receipt of the cous'clciatvon for which it was given ; and although Mr Kemp, knowing the paitia) rcJeaao aiait reached the hands of lus solicitor, would probably feel satisfied that the consideration for it had been paid to Mr Haynes by Mr Hodgkins, it cannot be said he was led into that through negligence on Mr Haynes's part. Mr Haynes, in e'ving that partial release, was not parting with the vhole security, lufc a small poition only, and might have Ijpcii satisfied, for vvlufc Mr Kemp knew to the contrary, with the security that was left for the whole amount of tho mortgage. It may be that tlis partial release of the mortgage executed by Mr Haynes might by a competent court be held to be effectual as a release of the land, but Mr Hayne3 has never admitted the receipt of the .£7O, and has not negligently led defendant To believe that he had To tua prejudice. Jndgmenfc for plaintiff for £-2 lGz, in addition to £55 4s p«id into court with, cost (24a).

Lilian Chester v. J. C. Bryant.— Claim £9 17s 6d, wages due. — Mr Barclay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Milne for the defendant. Tho plaintiff was an actress, and defendant;, she stated, engaged her to go on a lour round the goldiields. She was to be paid £3 a week, and defendant said her salary would not depend on the takings. She had received £2 IGs, and board amounting to £8 17s 6d had boon paid. She now claimed the balance. — THe defence was that defendant had not guaranteed plaintiff's salary. — Judgment was given fop the amount claimed, with costs.