CLAIM UNDER GUARANTEE

Taranaki Daily News, 17 December 1926, Page 11

CLAIM UNDER GUARANTEE

SUPREME COURT ACTION JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR PLAINTIFF. THE RESERVED FINDING. Judgment in the action Hewitt v. Mnmby, heard by the Chief Justice (Hon. C. P. Skerrett) in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth last session was .delivered in the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday morning. Hie Honour awarded plaintiff the fhll amount of his claim, £lOB2 8s 4d. together with costs, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements. The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of £l9OO and one year’s interest thereon under a guarantee given by the defendant to plaintiff in respect of the dealings of the plaintiff with one George Major. The plaintiff had financed Major when the latter was in possession of a dairy farm of some 68 acres by making advances to him for the purchase of livestock and otherwise. Subsequently Major took a lease from the plaintiff of a much larger farm for a term of five years, on the condition that plaintiff would finance him in the new venture. Major took over the livestock and plant at a valuation, and gave a chattels security to the plaintiff ovei- livestock, plant and certain paid-up shares in the Eltham Dairy company. Advances were made by plaintiff to Major to purchase the original stock and plant, and also further stock as required as well as for other purposes. Subsequently the plaintiff asked ■ Major to find guarantees to secure his account with plaintiff to the extent of £lOOO, and Mumby eventually entered into the guarantee concerning which the action was brought. After reciting the terms of the guarantee, His Honour said it was clear that there must have been an accidental amission of some words which must be supplied - to make the instrument intelligible. The language oi t‘»' guarantee showed that it was intended to guarantee the repayment by Major of all money owing at the time of the guarantee to the plaintiff, and also of all money which might be advanced by plaintiff to Major during the two yeans from July 1, 1922. This view, His Honour held, was confirmed by other clauses in the guarantee. After analysing the methods of accounting between tire parties, His Honour arrived at the conclusion from the facts presented that there still remained a debit against Major of over £1359, or under the guarantee a sum exceeding £lOOO. His Honour therefore upheld the claim under the guarantee, and gave judgment for the full amount claimed. £lOB28s 4d, with costa, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements. ,