A MORTGAGE DEED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16449, 10 June 1921, Page 7

A MORTGAGE DEED.

SUPREME COURT ACTION. The bearing of a claim by William James Multitude, builder, North New Brighton, against Horace Thompson, Christchurch, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. The claim was for delivery and cancellation of a

mortgage deed, in tlie alternative the sum of £4OO. Plaintiff alleged that Allan Hopkins, bankrupt, induced him to bcrrqw £4OO from defendant in order to build a*house at North New Brighton, that documents were given to defendant. but that the sum ol £4OO was not paid to plaintiff. Defendant said that he paid the sum to Allan Hopkins, as plaintiff’s agent, and that defendant was not responsible. Defendant refused to give up the documents, on the ground that they were the only security for his money. Mr H. HHanna appeared for plaintiff and Mr F. S. "Wilding for defendant. Mr Wilding said that Allan Hopkins had been subpaenaed to attend, but had stated that he could not remember anything, ancl would break down, and it was useless to call him.

Horace Thompson, defendant, said that he paid two sums of £2OO each to Hopkins. To his Honor, he said that tlie first £2OO was to be held by Hopkins and was not to be paid by Hopkins to plaintiff until Hopkins was satisfied that the mortgage was executed. His Honor : You would not pay £2OO unless you knew you had security?— No. certainly not. Well, the !E2OO was to be held by Hopkins until your security was ob-tained?-—Well, I presume so. sir. Witness continued that Hopkins told him at the time that negotiations were proceeding that the mortgage deed was in course of preparation, and that everything was quite in order, and that the security was absolutely sound. Witness gave Hopkins instructions to

see that a proper mortgage was executed before Hopkins paid over the money. Hopkins then went to witness for the other £2OO. Witness asked him if the deed of mortgage had been executed. Hopkins replied in the affirmative, and produced both the mortgage deed and the application for the loan, and showed them to witness. Witness asked if they had plaintiff’s signature- HBpkius said that they had. Hopkins later paid that lie was on his way to tho stamp office to have the deed properly sealed, and again, in rdply to witness, who had read tho mortgage through, said that everything was in order to the last detail. On account of those assurances, and bn production of the documents, witness gave Hopkins tlie second cheque for £2OO, and obtained Hopkins’s receipt. It witness had had the slightest idea that, there were any difficulties in the way he would have sued Hopkins. To his Honor: Hopkins produced the transfer of tho land from Luther Hopkins to plaintiff, and said that everything was absolutely clear and above board. Witness knew nothing of plaintiff not having received the money. He knew nothing of any difficulties in that respect until lie received a summons in the present case. Mr Hanna : Did you give written authority to Hopkins to pay the money to plaintiff?—No. You have had several dealings in New Brighton properties?—No, I have not, not before this case arose.

You are very friendly with Hopkins? Ho calls you Horace and you call him Allan?—No; lie takes liberties with me, but 1 always fall him My Hopkins. I never approached him ; he came to me, and akked me to lend the money. I never had put money in his hands for investment. Mr Wilding, in reference to one sum of £2OO, said that defendant paid it into Hopkins’s account. Hopkins paid the same sum, soon afterwards, to plaintiff. Hopkins marked the payment “ Re Mcnson,” which referred to other moneys due to plaintiff , but that was a wrong action on Hopkins’s part. 'J he sum was not paid “ Re Monson,” but was the identical money defendant paid to Hopkins to pass on to plaintiff, who, therefore, had received tlie money. His Honor: Are you entitled to say that the money paid by Hopkins to plaintiff on that occasion actually was defendant’s money? Mr Wilding: Yes, sir. It is the identical money. His Honor adjourned further hearing of tlie case to a I lord counsel to submit a memorandum containing authorities they quoted ou the law points.