COSTLY LITIGATION

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1927, 28 October 1926, Page 5

COSTLY LITIGATION

RACING CLUB GUARANTEE. A JOINT AND 'SEVERAL BONID. ’ The reserved judgment of Mr Justice ISltringer was given at Hamilton on Tuesday pn the motion, under rule 236, brought by Daniel Wilfredt Jones and William Sprott, of Morrinsyille, to set aside a j|uidgm]e,n|t obtained by Henry Manuel and others in connection with a joint and s'etveral guarante»2) given by plaintiffs and defendants to ithe bank on behalf of the Morrinsville Racling Club. 'Plaintiffs had sujed the defendants and others for contributions in 'respect ’to Ithe guarantee, and judgment had bthn obtained by default against defendants fdr individual amounts, together. with a joint an dseveral judgment for Ith'a coats iof the action, which were allowed at £207 17s 6d.

Plaintiffs' had called upon Messrs Sprott, and Jones to pay the balance cluj?, for costs, £l5O odd, and a motion was brought by the two defendants to have the judgment set aside so as. Ill: related to these costs, and to their joint and several liability therefor. His Honour in big judgment stated tliialt the authorities appeared to show that Ithe judgment was right in awarding a joint and several, judgment for costs, and that tlhe defendants, who wkire caled upon to pay, had’ a right to recover a proportion from this 1 codefendants. IWith regard Ito the sum of costs allo'wed, a mistake appeared to have been made. The judgment was for costs as per soalje', and it was wrongly assumjed t'hatthe amount involved .in the action was the whole amount paid! by plainltiffs to the bank under the guarantee, namely, £3522, whereas the amount realy involved wa,s till© propojrtion only of the amount paid by ithe plaintiffs, which th|a defendants werei Hiaibje to aonflribute, namely, £1774 6s Bd|, for which laltter amonut judgment was given against defendants. IHis Honour therefore thought ihat t:h)2 judgment should be amended by reducing Ithe costs by £55 13s, being 'the excess fee allowed for ’the trial, and that the followiing provision should tie) addled to this judgment: “And leave is further risserved to the defendants or any of them to take further action as to Itheir respeotivte liabilities as Hjetween themsehkls or as between them or either of them and th'a plaintiffs.” Als the motion was only partly successful, His ' Honour made no order as Ito costs ion it as against plainltiffs. Thja defendants, who moved, had a right to recovtejr a proportion of the costs incurred by them from the other defendants in the action. Mr E. McGfr'eigor moved tlhe motion and .'Mr : C. M. G. MdDavitlt represented plainltiffs.