HIS OWN CASE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 831, 1 June 1910, Page 9

HIS OWN CASE.

LITIGANT ESCHEWS LAWYERS. DRAWN SWORDS. A case with some interesting sidelights was heard in the Supremo Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). It was the first ease of the longdelayed civil sittings, the parties being James Alexander Hannah, boot and shoe manufacturer, of Wellington (plaintiff), and Charles Nodine, tailor, of Wellington (defendant). Mr. A. Blair appeared for the plaintiff, but defendant was not represented by counsel. The cave had been mentioned previously in Chambers, ami, on one occasion, Mr. Justice Cooper advised defendant Nodina that, Q5 his documents filed in Court vicre net of any value at all, ho ought to consult a solicitor. Nodine had then replied that he had no faith in lawyers. Tho claim was for the specific performance of a written agreement entered into between plaintiff and Nodine, on September 15 last, by which Nodine agreed to lease premise's at 2-16 Lanibton Quay, for $ term of five years from January 1, 1010, at a rental of <£800 per annum payable weekly. In the statement of claim, it was s?ointcd out that when the lease was drawn up in accordance with the instructions agreed upon, Nodine refused to execute it. Amended leases were thon drawn up, but none of them .were accepted bv Nodine, who declined to take possession of the premises. The Court was asked to order Nodine—(l) To perform specifically the agreement, (2) to .pay plaintiff the sum of £292 Gs. as damages for the nonexecution of the 'memorandum of lease, and (3) to pay costs of tho action. ■ A statement of defence had been filed hy Nodine, who declared that he hod looked upon tho agreement as nothing more than instructions. He denied that Hannah had any claim against him, he denied that he had agreed to pay JCBOO per annum, and he denied also that he entered into a complete agreement with Hannah. He alleged that his stipulations had been ignored, omitted, or altered in the agreement, which he had not read through, and which was not read to him before he signed it. He urged that the document prepared was "harsh, objectionable, uncertain, vague, and unspeeific," that it contained "falsehood, or mistake, and surprise," and that there was misrepresentation of the condition of parts of the premises "in a deceitful manner/' He alleged that since he rejected the first lease submitted, plaintiff with Andrew W.vlie, solicitor (who had drawn up the agreement containing the I instructions for the lease), had wilj fully delayed tho matter, and had made "weak, evasive, and untrue excuses for such wilful delay." He expressed the opinion that Andrew Wylie was acting for both parties, and added that, for this reason) he believed that he would not get a fair and equitable lease. He alleged that the delay had upset his arrangements, and caused him serious loss and inconvenience. He therefore counterclaimed <£523 damages. (This counterclaim had been struck out when tho case was mentioned in Chambers.) Taken Unawares. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Nodino asked that if necessary, an adjournment should be granted in order that he might get witnesses to attend. "I did npfc -know whether my defcnce would stand or not," said Nodine, "and when your. Honour said' this morning that the case was to go on, I was taken unawares."'

His Honour: I , can't help that. Ton had ample opportunity to find out when the case was coming on, and you ought to have known. Your defence is not in order, but, as you had no one to advise you, I was willing to ■ let your defcnco stand to see whether we could spell anything out of* it at all. The main questions ore: (1) Was there an agreement? and (2) have you performed it, or have they performed it? Mr, Blair -remarked that the case was n siniple one, because the agreement had been reduced to -writing. There wns dispute on only two questions of fact: (1) The condition of the premises, and (2) the insertion of: the clause regarding assignees carrying on business as boot and shoe manufacturers. Andrew Wylie, solicitor, produced the agreement drawn up liy him arid signed by Robert Hannah and Nodine. Mr Nodine: Is it stamped? Mr. Blair: No. Mr. Nodine: Why not? Mr. Blair: We purposely refrained from having it stamped, because Mr. Nodine might have sugeestcd that we were tampering with it. Mr. Nodino used to come to look at it every day. (Laughter.) Mr Nodine: That is not 50..1 only camo to see it twice. His Honour: It will be stamped. After Mr. Blnir had concluded his examination of the witness, his Honour asked: "Havo you any questions, Mr. Nodine?" . . Defendant: Yes; I have a lot. I am afraid it will take a long while. I suppose I may ask almost anything I like? His Honour: Oh, no; you know better than that. Defendant: I mean questions connected with the case. His Honour: You may ask relevant questions. . ■ Defendant: I like to know where wo stand. .* Not Used to Interruptions, Cross-examination was ' proceeding when his Honour remarked that the questions asked by Nodino were quite inadmissible. "You might as well ask about the comet!" said his Honour. Nodine: I am not used to all this interruption from the Bench. I don't care for it. His Honour: Well, you will have to behave yourself. I am here to see tho business of the Court conducted properly, and you must not waste the time of the Court with irrelevant questions. Albert Alexander Wylie stated % that the instructions for the preparation of a lease were handed to him, and he drew up a lease to which Nodine made objections. ■ Robert Hannah stated that the premises which Nodine had agreed to lease were the property of his son, James Alexander Hannah. He said that, so far as this transaction was concerned, it did not matter who signed the documents. The clauses of the agreement to lease were mostly dictated by Nodine, but a clause was inserted, and approved, providing that Nodine must not sublet or assign to any boot manufacturer or boot retailer,-although' Nodine might himself carry on a boot business. Nodine was able to have possession from the day on which he signed tlie inrrnmvpnr. whereas he was not really entitled to possession until December. Warmth in Gross-examination. Somo feeling was amused between the witness and Nodine during cross-exam-ination. "Did you write this letter?" asked Nodine, holding up<a iile of correspondence. "No," replied tho witness, "I have never written a letter to you in my life, and 1 don't intend to." frequent references were made to the document signed by Kohcrt Hannah, and by Nodine, and the latter remarked that 'he would have something serious to say about it." . His Honour: There is no suggestion in the pleadings that the document was tampered with,' in the direction of including clauses which you were not US-are of. Nodine: May 1 not say what I know, then? His Honour: 1 don't know (hnt you aro entitled to refer to that, as it" is not in the pleadings, but ] would warn you (hut you are making a serious charge, l'ou aro making a charge of forgery. Nodine: Ought I not to mako the statement, if 1 know it is true? His Honour: There are two witnesses, Mr. Wylie, and Mr. Hannah, and if, in the face of their evidence, which has not been challenged, you mako an allegation such as you suggest, you arc liable to Iμ indicted for perjury. Nodine: Well, your Honour. 1 will do what 1 believe to be righl—even if your Honour has to send-me to gaol. His Honour: I have no doubt you will I do what y6u believe to be fight. Later \odiue referred to a certain

clause of the agreement, and asked: "Do you think that is a proper thing to put ill a lease? You are a big landlord, Air. Hannah, owning many the Quay, and draw up many leases.' Witness: I don't know I don t believe in cheap law. (Laughter.) Nodine: Neither do I, and I doc t think you will set it cheap. . The'court adjourned at 5.30 o clooK, his Honour intimating that the cufo would be proceeded with at 3 p.m. today,' if the criminal work was concluded at that hour.