APPEAL MADE ON A POINT OF LAW.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 144, 19 June 1931, Page 7

APPEAL MADE ON A POINT OF LAW.

CLERICAL ERROR MADE BY OFFICIAL IN COURT. (Special to the '* Star.”) AUCKLAND. June IS. The entering of a judgment against the separate estate of a married woman on the ordinary form instead of on the special form provided led to an appeal on a point of law being heard before' Mr Justice Herdman in the Hamilton Supreme Court. The appellant was Mrs M. C. M’Mullen, of Ilinuera (Mr E. M. Mackersey), and the respondents, the Farmers’ Co-operative Auctioneering Company, Limited (Mr H. Hine). Mr Mackersey said that on October 9, 1930, the respondent company issued a summons against T. M’Mullen and his wife, Mrs M. C. M’Mullen, for £llO 7s 2d. Mrs M’Mullen was sued in respect of her separate estate. Subsequently, judgment was entered against both husband and wife by confession. In the records of the Court, however, the judgment against the woman was entered in the ordinary form instead of in the special form as laid down in the case Scott v. Morley. His Honor: But it was a blunder of an officer of the Court. Mr Mackersey: That is so. Continuing counsel said that on December 9, 1930, the respondent company issued an attachment order against moneys owing to appellant by the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, Limited. The judgment being faulty, counsel contended that the attachment order became ineffective, although £29 2s lOd had been paid over to the respondent company by the dairy company. Ilis Honof: But surely the magistrate has power to amend an error so made in the entering up of the judgment? Mr Mackersey contended that he had not. His Honor: But supposing a judgment was entered, and it was discovered ten minutes later than an officer of the Court had made a mistake in entering the judgment do you mean to say that the judgment would be unalterable ? Counsel contended that the entry would be unalterable. Mr Mackersey maintained that tfc® Court could not go into the antecedents of the case, but must regard the judgment only on its face value. Ilis Honor: There is an admission in this case that the amount of the judgment is due. Mr Hine relied for his defence on the judgment of Mr Justice Reed that the magistrate had an inherent duty to correct a judgment which, as drawn up, did .not express his intention. Counsel contended that the judgment in this case did not express the intention of the Court. Appellant had confessed judgment as asked for, and the intention of the Court could only have been to enter judgment a? sought and confessed to. His Honor said the question was: | Did the judgment record the magistrate’s intention? The magistrate said it did not. His Honor said he proposed to take the responsibility. of holding that the magistrate in this case had jurisdiction to correct the error that . had been made. The appeal was dismissed, with £5 j