SUMMONS FEES"

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 106, 6 May 1936, Page 6

SUMMONS FEES"

DEBT COLLECTING COY.’S CHARGES I VIEWED AS ILLEGALITY i FINES IMPOSED ON 36 COUNTS i_ Per Press Association. ) AUCKLAND, May 5. i Fines and costs totalling £207 6s were imposed on Percy Fraser Hodgson. managing director of the (Dominion Mercantile Agency, Ltd., and Frederick William Packer, manager of the firm’s Auckland office, by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., ift the Police Court. They were each convicted on 36 charges of committing theft by fraudulently omitting to account for or pay part of moneys received from clients under the heading of “Court costs.” The police contention was that the amounts charged under this heading as “summons fees” were in excess of the actual disbursements. “This company is the largest of its kind in New Zealand,” said Mr. >Spencer R. Mason, who appeared for tlu defence, opening his address when the case was resumed. “It has been built up over 2S years by integrity and trust, and it is suggested that a firm of that kind not only perpetrates a long series of petty thefts but does so i in the knowledge of its numerous staffs.” Mr. Mason submitted that the 5s was not a solicitor’s fee for issuing 1 a summons but an office charge almost in the nature of a disbursement to cover the whole of the organisation which the companv conducted. It included the typing and preparation of statements of claim and other charges. The company did not sue generally without consulting customers. In fact, it semetimes had difficulty in persuading customers that legal action was not ; worth while. There was no sugges- • lion that there was any encourageI meat of summonses. Sanderson had , said in a letter resigning his position 1 tha‘ ho wa*> geiug t? prosecute. That ■ showed malice, contended counsel. He I had since engaged in competitive busii ness and had flourished the matter in • the faces of the Dominion Mercantile ! Agency’s clients. Sanderson had said ? he had no opportunity of seeing the l I books, but he had been in charge of > | the office in Packer’s absence. The i I evidence would show that Sanderson r | was consumed with a desire to smash i ' the Dominion Mercantile Agency. r i Mr. Mason also submitted that there - i was no evidence to connect Hodgson - | with the charges. ? In evidence, Hodgson said the sums mons fees were imposed 10 or 12 years ; ago. He thought all clients were aware I of the summons fees. | “The contract between this agency i and its clients is one in which the j | greatest good faith is required,” said s the magistrate. Court costs were an a illegal charge, he added, for such - charges could only be made by authorz’ed people. This was to prevent liti-