AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 213, 9 October 1929, Page 5

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT

CASE HEARD DURING JUNE SESSIONS. CLAIM ' ON NAPIER HARBOUR BOARD. ^ During the June sessions of the Napier Supreme Court, a case was • lieard which attracted a great deal of attention, that of the Leyland Motors Ltd. (Mr Fizherbert) v. the Napier Harbour Board (Mr M. R. Grant), the official assignee in the bankruptcy of Robert McGaffin, contractor to the board (Mr H. B. Lusk) and others. > The plaintiff asked for the eourt's direction as to how certain amounts held by the Napier Harbour Board and on which orders had heen given by the bankrupt. should he allocated. The Chief Justice,. the H011. M. Mye'rs, was on the Bench. Appearan- ' ces for workers, ialso cpyered hy oi'ders, were made by Messrs 'D. Scannell and M. L. Gleeson. who urged that their clainis were entiled to priority under the Workers' Liens Act. After hearing evidenun and considerahle legal argument, His Honour *re1 served his judgment. which has now heen delivered hy the Registrar in Hi« Hononr's ahsence. The judgment, is an exceptionaily lengthy one. exteuding over 22 typewritten sheets. His Honour hplds as follows: — (T) That the Official Assignee is entitled to three snms of £99. £69 and £20 held hv the board as being the. property of the Kankrupt. (2) That the notices of attachme'nt hv the workers are valid under the Wages Protection and Contractors' Liens Act, 1908. to the following extent:— R.van. £3 9s; Snell £3 5s: Riddell. £312: McMillan. £182: Brownries; £30; Dale, £6: Orr. £28: Phair, £30 3s 3d ; Bailey, £11 3s 5d : Brierley. I £4 16s; McMullan. £4 6s. The total is £615 2s 8d and these workers art> entitled to judgment acainst tlie_ Official Assignee' and to orders aecordinglv. (31 The plaintiff is entitled to £169 ISs 3d. being the difference between £615 2s 8d pavable to the workers and a the snm of £785 0s Hd held hy the " Nauier Harbour Board. ~ His Honour goes on to remark thatthere is nothing to which the nssign- •, ments of Denton, Dihble and Stanford ean attach. He conclndes hy remark- ® ing that all parties have, hy their own condnct. 1ac] Li a greater or less degreo 'j to the difficult.ies that have_ arisen and to the necessity for the litigation and he does not think the case is one where costs should he allowed to any of the •:{ parties.