JUDGMENT CONFESSION

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1009, 27 June 1930, Page 11

JUDGMENT CONFESSION

SUPREME COURT DECISION Press Association ' WELLINGTON, Today. I.he rights of plaintiff in connection wan a confession of judgment was cleaJt with in a reserved decision delivered by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court. The case was one in v. melt the Auckland Automobile Association, Incorporated, took action against Palmer and Mahood, Ltd., in respect to the use of the association’s U ° 1 ' th Island motorist maps by detendant. On the day before the case was to come on for trial, defendant conlesseci judgment in the prescribed J i A order for judgment, stated nis Honour, containing - a good ? .°? P iatt or not included in plaintiff s claim, was submitted for approval to defendant, who rejected it. His Honour was then asked to settle the form of the order. The principal objection by defendant to the form of judgment was a clause reading “that account be taken oi the number of maps printed, published, sold or otherwise disposed of by defendant in breach of plaintiff’s copyright, and of profit earned thereby.” It was submitted that the draft order was not inconsistent with either the facts alleged or the relief expressly asked. His Honour said that that was not the point. When defendant filed the confession he confessed in the terms of the prayer of plaintJlf- The association could have claimed (1) An account of the profits or (3) an inquiry as to tha damages it would have been required to elect. At th© trial, whether U would take one or the other, it would not bo entitled to both, but in the prayer in the present pleadings it had claimed neither. It had confined its prayer to a certain specific relief. It was no answer that it was entitled to claim one or the other, or even that on tne prayer for general relief the court might have made an order in the terms as now desired. The plaintiff association, said his Honour, was entitled, if it desired, to enter up judgment upon confession, and to do so in accordance with the terms of the prayer for relief. It might be entitled to some minor alterations, but to nothing which would impose upon the defendant company any serious burden. In addition to the relief specifically asked, defendant was allowed £ 3 3s costs and disbursements.