DIVISION OF MILK MONEYS

Taranaki Daily News, 10 June 1931, Page 13

DIVISION OF MILK MONEYS

HAWERA APPEAL DISMISSED. COMPANY ACTED AS AGENT. The reversal of the decision of Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., at Hawera, when he found in favour of the defendant on a claim for £2O was sought yesterday by Andrew Crystal, solicitor, as assignee of Diild Theresa Beethara, Matapu, and Mrs. Beetbam. The respondent was the Waimate Plains Dairy Co., Ltd. The appeal, which was on a point of law, was dismissed, with £7 7s. costs and disbursements, after the matter had been argued at length. Mr. J. Hessell appeared for the appellants and Mr. A. K. North for the respondent. , The facts were that Mr. Chrystal was acting as solicitor for E. Clare and J. Peters, who were creditors of Clement Rice. Beetham. Before July 1, 1930, Beetham leased lands at Matapu from Joel. R. Prestidge, his father-in-law. Beetham owed a considerable -sum to creditors and had assigned his estate for their benefit. He was a supplier to the Waimate Plains Comany, which held a bill of sale over his stock and plant, and towards the end of June, 1930, his indebtedness to the company amounted to about £2OO more than the value of the security. Prestidge, who had not been paid the rent for the last quarter, was owed a total of £238 and was unwilling to grant a renewal of the lease to Beetham, though he was not unwilling to grant it to his daughter, Mrs. Beetham. The company in the interests of its security desired to keep the Beethams on the property. Mrs. Beetham saw L. H. Clapham, manager of the company, and agreed that he should act as her agent in negotiations for a renewal on any terms. On May 26, 1930, Prestidge’s solicitors, Messrs. Walsh', McCarthy, Beechey and Houston, wrote Clapham offering a lease of the property to Mrs. Beetham for three years. Clapham had instructed Messrs. Halliwell, Thomson, Horner and North in the matter. Mr. Horner, who handled the matter, had also been instructed by Mrs. Beetham. The company, having been given full control to enter arrangements, had a memorandum of agreement prepared, and this was signed on June 21, 1930, by Mr. McCarthy, as solicitor for Prestidge, and Mr. Horner as solicitor for the company. This agreement gave Mrs. Beetham a lease for four years and provided that one-third of the milk moneys was to go to the company to liquidate its bill of sale and interest, and two-thirds to Prestidge to provide rents, rates, insurance, living expenses at £5 a week, etc., and any surplus of the two-thirds was to be applied to the reduction of the debts totalling £238. There whs a strict covenant against assigning or sub-letting, and Mrs. Beetham was to take over the stock and plant and assume liability for the debts to the company. On July 4 Mrs. Beetham and her husband had the whole transaction explained to them by Mr. Horner, and on the same day the company assigned the stock, implements and machinery to Mrs. Beetham, who executed a bill of sale in favour of the company. The lease was not executed till August 12, but the term was expressed as commencing on July 1. When Mr. Chrystal, who was aware ,of Beetham’s position, learned that the negotiations for a release had been finalised he prepared a: d Mrs. Beetham signed an order dated July 11, 1930, authorising and directing the secretary of the company to pay-’to Mr. Chrystal, as agent for Clare and Peters, “onethird of the gross cheques payable for milk, or cream, or other products supplied by me to your company,” and adding, ‘‘this order will be irrevocable until the whole of my husband’s indebtedness ... is paid in full.” This order was sent to the company on July 16, but'its acceptance was refused. Clapham told Mr. Chrystal that his company had an order for one-third of the milk moneys; that two-thirds was assigned to Prestidge; and that he could not make four-thirds. Subsequent to this interview Mr. Chrystal learnt that the lease to Mrs. Beetham and the order for two-thirds to Prestidge had not been signed. On the appeal yesterday Mr. Hessell submitted (1) that Mrs. Beetham was incapable in law of ratifying- the memorandum of June 21, to which she was a stranger, and so the only prior equity of assignment to July 11 the assignment to the respondent of onethird of the milk moneys on July 4; (2) Mrs. Beetham did not in law ratify the memorandum of June 21; (3) that even if she could, and did, then the agreement of June 21, not being a prior equitable assignment, could not affect the assignments of July 4 and 11. Mr. North, referring to the document of June 21, contended it was plainly made by the company primarily for Mrs. Beetham, and the Beetham family, and was based on a division of the profits from the land. It was simply an arrangement for the future carrying on of the farm entered into between the landlord and the company, which was acting for Mrs. Beetham. It was not a case of ordinary assignment, the arrangement being directed towards protecting the landlord for his rent and Mrs. Beethara for living expenses. Mrs. Beetham had said'she agreed to be bound by whatever Clapham did, and it was submitted the company was in this matter her duly authorised agent and signed on her behalf. The document was really a contract by Mrs. Beetham herself to dispose of the milk cheques in a certain manner, and she had no right to dispose of them otherwise. If that were so, there the matter ended. After Mr. Hessesll had replied his Honour dismissed the appeal, saying he was satisfied as to the position. His opinion was that Mrs. Beetham authorised the company to enter an agreement for the future carrying on of the farm. The company employed Mr. Horner, who signed the agreement, and Mrs. Beetham was bound by it.