COURT OF APPEAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17013, 11 April 1923, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL.

BOLUS V. INGLIS. (Pbr. Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April 11. The Court of Appeal is engaged in the hearing of argument in Bolus and Co. and another v. Inglis Bros. The facts of the case were that Bolus and Co. were the London buying agents of Inglis and Go. In 1920 Bolus and Co., in execution of respondent’s orders, shined goods and drew on the respondent ior £1752 2s 4d, the value of such goods, plus charges. The bill was duly accepted and became due on February 2, 1921, but th© time for payment was extended to May 4 following. Part of the goods to the extent of £765. represented by a bill, had been supplied . by the Sopwith Aviation and Engineering Company. This company went into liquidation, and its liquidators claimed the payment- of the £765 direct from the respondent. In these circumstances the respondent dishonoured the bill The appellants, however, sued for the full amount although thev had not paid the Sopwith Company the £765. The respondent was ready to pay the amount, provided that he did not have to pay the £765 twice over, and he paid into Court the sum of £999 12s 4d. In. the Supreme Court Mr Justice Hosking had held that th© respondent was not liable to pay the appellant’s £765. Front this judgment Bolus and Co. appealed before the Appeal Court. Mr A. Gray, K.C.. and with him Mr von Haast appeared for the appellants.

and Mr M. Myers, K.C.. and with him Mr O'Leary, for the respondent. Mr Gray said that- Bolus and Co. had made themselves personally liable to the Sopwith Company for payment of the £765. In any case Sopwith and Co. had elected to treat Bolus and Co. as principals, and Bolus and Co. were therefore entitled to sue for the full amount of the bill. Argument is proceeding.