LAW QUERIES.

Otago Witness, Issue 4042, 1 September 1931, Page 44

LAW QUERIES.

[Answered by a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Letters and Telegrams must be addressed to " LEX," c/o Editor, Otago Witness, Dunedin.l

“ Inquirer ” asks : ‘ A owes an account for £5. B sends a solicitor’s letter for same and adds cost of letter. Can he claim same ? ” A can decline to pay the cost of the letter. “Inquirer No. 2” asks : “When a private limited liability’ company’ is formed, do the shareholders have to pay in all theij- share capital immediately ? ” Yes. “Subscriber No. 2’’ asks: “(1) I have a first mortgage over a freehold property, which the mortgagor sold sometime after the mortgage was given without my authority. Was he within his rights in doing so ? (2) The interest on the above mortgage is paid quarterly, and the niortgagor is always three weeks behind tlie due date in paying. I am told he is allowed this time. Is this so?” (1). Yes. (2) The usual time allowed is either 14 days or one calendar month. “ Subscriber ” asks ; “(1) A man pegged a beach claim a mile in length. This claim is below high-water mark, and for the purpose of washing gold out of the black sand he pegged the claim and posted the necessary’ notices. As the applications will not come before the court for two weeks yet, can he prevent men from working on this ground meantime ? (2) Can he stop those men working and at the same time work the ground himself, those men having lodged an objection to the claim being granted ? ”• (1) No. (2) No. “ Books ” asks : “A man has a factory and retail shop, and has always kept them as two businesses, with the result that the factory has not paid but the retail has. He hag had to advance from his profits and drawings ip the retail branch to the factory account to balance the latter. Now, wishing to bring the two under one heading and have only one set of books instead of two, would it be right to call what he has advanced from the retail as ‘purchase of factory’ and bring it forward as such, still showing the advances on the other side as ‘ loan from himself ’ or to ‘ credit the profit and loss account ’ with the aforesaid advances,

or would one be correct in wiping out both of these items and starting afresh ? I am in doubt as to what is the proper way to treat these entries.” Under the circumstances it would be advisable to start a fresh set of books.

“Anxious ” asks ; “A solicitor received a sum of money 12 years ago to invest in sound investment at three months’ call. Without submitting to client he loaned the money on property. Twelve months ago he was instructed to call in the money, but was unable to get principal, and since then no interest has been paid. On inquiries being ma’de, the property’ is found to be in a very bad condition. The solicitor cannot produce valuator’s report when money was lent, but produces insurance policy equal to amount of loan to prove the security was good. About three years ago the insurance company’ declined the risk, and after great efforts another insurance company took over the risk for the amount of loan. In the event of the property being sold and not realising the amount of the mortgage, can the solicitor be held responsible for balance, as he has been very lax in not protecting his client’s interest ? ” If the solicitor has made an unauthorised investment of the money, he can be held responsible for any loss.

“Fatmer” asks: “(1) A owns a farm adjoining an unoccupied farm, the boundary fence between the two properties not being stock-proof. A’s sheep went into the unoccupied property. The mortgagee disposed of the property, and either he or the ingoing tenant impounded A’s sheep secretly. The sheep ■were knocked about by’ overdriving. Can A claim compensation, also recovery’ of pounding fees, as no arrangement had been made as to the half of fence each party was to maintain and no repairs had been made by the mortgagee or purchaser ? (2) A sells sheep at a public sale with his own registered earmark and no other mark. His adjoining neighbour, B, bought the sheep, took them home, and defaced the earmark. As there is only a wire fence separating the two farms and sheep occasionally get through, has A a legal claim against B for defacing A’s earmark and purchasing the sheep when the two properties join ? ” (I) As the fence was not stock-proof, A’s neighbour had no legal right to impound the sheep, and A lias a claim for compensation. (2) A has no legal claim against B.