THE STAGPOOLE CASE AGAIN.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1726, 17 April 1913, Page 6

THE STAGPOOLE CASE AGAIN.

THE QUESTION OP COSTS. ANOTHER VERSION. Strong exception is taken by the officials ol the New Zealand Educational Institute and by the solicitors of that body , to statements contained in a letter from Mr. P. Pirani (chairman of the Wanganui Education Board), which was published in The Dominion last week. The letter dealt with developments arising out.of the Stagpoole case, a teachers' appeal adjudicated upon last year by the Xeachers' Appeal Court. institute's solicitors stato that Mr. Pirani's letter misrepresents the true position. and further assert that many of tho detail statements made are absolutely incorrect. Air. Pirani says in his letter: "The institute's solicitor (Air. Alyers)- contended that tho order 'should have been made payable by Mr. Stagpoole, and then t'lio institute would have been liable, but, as that had not been done, thero was' n<s liability on tho part of the instituto to pay anything."

To this statement the institute's solicitors give a llat denial, stating that tbey never suggested that tho order should bo made payable by Mr. Stagpoole. Secliou 20G of tho Education Act provides, inter alia, that ono member of the Teachers' Court of Appeal shall be nominated by a corporation situate iu the district, aud a memorandum in the thirteenth schedulo of tho Act prescribes a form in which tho corporation undertakes to pay whatever costs may bo awarded against the appellant teaclier..

Tlio corporation which nominated a member of tho court in connection with Mr. Stagpoolo's case, and assumed responsibility for costs, tho solicitors, state, was tho Wanganui'Educational Institute, and _ not tho New Zealand Educational Institute, which never was a party to the appeal. Tho New Zealand Institute, tho solicitors state, was not liable at all, end even if Mr. Stagpoolo's name had been mentioned in the order, it would not'huve affected, tho liability of tho Now Zealand Institute. Sub-section 2 of Section 218 of the Education Act sets forth as follows the expensps which Way be awarded as costs:— "In such costs shall be included witnesses' expenses and tho actual expenses incurred by or on behalf of tlio Court and its members in holding the sittings of tho.Court." This, the institute solicitors claim, limits the Court's jurisdiction in regard to costs. In the Stagpoole case the Court included in the award of costs ,£ls 15s. to Mr. Kerr (president) for services; ail equal sum to each of tho two assessors and to Mr. Pirani for his services as advocate, .£lB ISs. . ' In support of their contentions, the institute solicitors (Messrs. Bell, Gully, Bell and Myers) produced their file of correspondence relating to tho Stagpoole case. From this it appears that early in 1912 they wrote to the Wanganui Education Board contending that, under tho Act, no fees were payable to members of tho Court or to advocates, and stating that if tho board desired they would be glad to discuss the question with its solicitors. On March 31, the institute solicitors wrote to the board's solicitors, one passage in the letter being as follows:—"We know that tho order does not direct to whom, oven if it does Say by whom (which possibly is not altogether clear), costs have to be paid and if the board does not agree to the proposal made in this letter'the institute reserves the right to contend that the order is not a valid one and imposes no liability upon the institute, and this letter is written, without prejudice to that right." - Tho offer mentioned was an offer to pay the 'costs less the four items mentioned above (fees to advocate and members of the Court). . On April 18 . the institute solicitors wrote another letter to tho board, reserving the right in any caso to contend that tho order was not a valid one. By a letter dated. May 21, tho board, advised the institute solicitors that its solicitors had been instructed to take steps to recover the costs; Tho -institute solicitors state that the next communication they received on the subject was a letter dated June 21, from the board's solicitors, stating that they wero instructed by the board to accept the offer previously made—a settlement for the amount awarded less the four items objected to.. Oil July 12, the institute solicitors, wrolo stating that they regarded the letter of tho board as a new offer, and that- i't would received consideration'. Tho letter wai considered by tho members of the institute'executive on September. 24, and subsequently 1 a -letter was written saying that the institute had been advised that it was extremely doubtful whether it was liable at all under the order, but that it. did not desiro to tako advantago of technical points. At tho samo .time it could not see its way to pay specific amounts included in the order, which it was advised l in any case the Court had no jurisdiction to award. In this letter the offer mado was pay the costs, less the four items objected to and less a further sum of X 9 9s. Tho institute solicitors deny that the accuracy of Mr. Pirani's statement that this sum was for ■ copies of the evidence made by 'tlio Clerk of tho Court. They state that copies of evidence obtained from the Clerk of the Court had been obtained months before, and that the item objected to was a further sum of J!9 9s. for the services of the clerk, in addition to .£7 7s„ which he had had from each of the parties for copies of the notes. It was questioned whether Jie should receive this further sum of ,£9 95., seeing that- ho was n Government servant, and had no doubt been paid his salary. On November 15 the board's solicitors wroto stating that the. board would be advised as to its position before accepting tho rrducod offer, and that counsel's opinion was being taken. Subsequently, however, the institute solicitors state, as tho result of further correspondence between the solicitors, although the institute was advised that it was not liable at all, it again refused to tnlce advantage of what it considered were technical points, and agreed to pay the amount awarded, less tlio four items objected to, but including the ,C 9 9s. to tlio clerk. This amount was paid. Tile institute solicitors daily contradict Mr. Pirani's statements that Mr. Myers asked that the payment to tho clerk of the court for copies of the evidence be abandoned, and that Mr. Myers subsequently asked* that, some of the expenses allowed by the Court to witnesses be struck oil'.' The solicitors also contradict the statement that- they paid over ,£llO

"under threat of exposure by an action iu the Supreme Court." Tliey first of all made the ofl'er, thr-y point oul, before there was any threat. The board refused the iifler, and made a throat, and then, later, wrote saying that, they wanted ti> neccpt the otter. There was 110 threat afterwards, but only negotiations,