MAILS TO FRISCO.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 96, 2 May 1901, Page 3

MAILS TO FRISCO.

By Telegraph—Press Association,

Wellington, last night. Mails by the Sierra, which left Auckland on April 13th, arrived at San Francisco yesterday, one day late.

On April 15 G. J. Frankenburg, owner of Woodbine vineyard, near Rutherglen, Victoria, was found dead in bed from a pistol shot. A revolver was attached to his hand. He was only 26 years of age, and had wealthy parents. How does a man get in a funk, And take himself right off to bunk, Ju3t when a pain with symptoms vague, Will make him think he’s caught the plague. How often does a cough or cold Make cowards of the brave and bold, Until they find the remedy sure— W. E. Woods’ Great Peppermint Cure.

Continued from tim'd page those deeds. The declaration of trust produced was prepared by me. The attestation to Bennett’s signature is mine. In the deed there is a provision that Bennett shall pay survey charges. Those are the charges I paid and charged Kataraina for. I acted for Bennett in the action New Zealand Native. Laud Settlement Company against Kataraina and Bennett. The statement of defence (produced) was filed on the 13th December. In that statement of defence it is set out that Bennett paid large sums for surveys and Court fees. I paid those fees. In December, ISS6, I was pressing Kataraina for some money on account. I did not receive any money from her. Kataraina then asked me to go on with her action I against Brassey. I refused unless I got money on account. Then Turton suggested that I should take security over Ivaiti section 334. It resulted in the agreement to transfer to Bennett. The conversations resulted in the execution of both deeds of the 24th December, 18S6. I cannot find any letters from Mr Turton. I have heard that he is dead. I have no copy of a letter to Turton in my letter-book in connection with the Kaiti land. I have no entries in my diary of conversations with Turton about Kataraina and the Kaiti land. I have a copy of my bill of costs against Kataraina dated 17th January, 1887. The bill is for 41184. That is the only bill of costs I ever rendered to Kataraina except the bill of costs from Finn and Chrisp for FB9. After joining Mr Chrisp in partnership, I again acted for Kataraina, but no bill of costs was rendered. By Mr Bell: In the bill of costs dated January, 1887, the date of the last entry is-fiSnd June, 1886. I pressed Kataraina for something on account in 1886. I saw her. She asked me to take up the case against Brassey, but I refused until something was paid on account of what was owing.- The transfer and deed of trust were drawn in my office. Before they were executed, Turton perused the deeds on behalf of Kataraina. I acted for Kataraina again after getting security. The action of the Now Zealand Native Land Settlement Company attacked my security. The Company entered a caveat against the land. When I knew the writ of the Company was issued I abandoned everything, and threatened to sue Kataraina for my costs. There was a writ served on Mr Bennett. I told him to have nothing more to do with the matter, and I declined to have anything to do with it. The writ served on Kataraina was given by Turton to me, and he asked me to defend the action. lat first declined. Then , he returned with Mr Ward solicitor, and : Turton then proposed if I woujd abstain from suing Kataraina he would got her to i revoke the original deed of trust of 24th December, 1886, and execute another memorandum of transfer either to myself or to Mr Bennett, free from all trusts. Ward said Kataraina was bound to win the action. Turton afterwards informed me that Kataraina had agreed to the : terms. I agreed to, defend the action. I filed the defence for her and for Bennett. The agreement was carried out. It was expressed in two documents. I drew them. They were submitted to Mr Turton. He . approved of them on behalf of Kataraina. She executed the documents. Frederick Jones acted as interpreter. Ono of the documents was the new memorandum of transfer. The other document revoked the deed of trust of 1886. The deed of revocation was last in my possession on the 7th of November, 1900. I handed it to Mr Cooper, who was then my counsel. Mr Cooper was counsel on the originating summons. I have never got the deed back. Mr Cooper ■ is now Mr Justice Cooper. I have caused inquiry to be made at his office about the deed. I have also written i to His Honor for it, but although search was made, the document has never been found. It has apparently been lost. I ! have not been able to find a draft of either the deed or revocation of the transfer. I have searched the office of f ' Messrs Finn and Chrisp for it.

Mr Bell put in the deed of transfer.

Mr Finn : I read the deed of revocation on my way to Auckland. The effect of the deed of revocation was to revoke the declaration of trust of 24th December, 1886, and rendered it void. .

By Mr Lusk : Turton did not defend the action against Kataraina, because ho had no clerk, and, further, because he did not like opposing Captain Tucker, wh^“ ! -*> was considered was interested in th'<P?" i tibn. Messrs Turton and Ward assisf4(.f witness in preparing the defences. The transfer of 1888 was completed on the 17th of that month.

Mr Lusk : Who were the principal parties to this deed of revocation ?

"Witness : Kataraina and Bennett. The latter signed and sealed it,

Mr Lusk: The action then pending was in respect to this section 334, Kaiti ? Not that alone ; there were other lands. The Company claimed section 334 among other lands. The deed provided that Mr Bennett was to hold this land for witness, and if the Company ’failed, to hand it to him. The consideration in the transfer from Bennett was T 390 6s 3d. It was made up with the two bills of costs, one amounting to 41184 8s 3d and the other to 4-89 3s lOd, also cash advanced to her to bring the total amount of Kataraina’s indebtedness up to 96470 9s 3d. Witness advanced cash in different sums in 1886. The sum of £390 was accepted by witness in payment of the total indebtedness.

At five o’clock Mr Bell opened the case for the defence, remarking that as ho wished to get away South that evening, he would leave Mr Lysnar to examine the witnesses they proposed to call. He submitted that there was no fraud proved, and that as far as the defendant was concerned a perfectly fair arrangement had been made with independent legal advice. Even supposing that on account of some technical flaw there was an opening for attack, the action had been brought too late. He quoted a number of authorities in support of his contentions. It had, he said, been prpyed upon the plaintiffs own case that the transfer and deed of revocation had been made at a time when Mr Finn was not acting for Kataraina. The demands made upon Bennett by Turton, ciearly shewed that the latter was acting or-Kataraina at this time. He intended ‘Uquoo as to the value of the. calling ev.u. ‘ •■- He submitted land when they took n. _ - that His Honor must be satisfied with'me evidence with regard to the deed of revocat’on. There was. nothing to prevent Finn having those transactions with Kataraina, so long as the latter had independent counsel, and this she did have in Tuiton. Counsel commented at length upon the evidence given by Captain Tucker and Materoa. The latter, he pointed out, was anxious in her evidence to keep well within the term of six years, whilst Captain Tucker was so anxious to tell them all he knew, that he went an extra six years back. There appeared to be a great deal of confusion on the part of the plaintiffs as to the date of the death of Kataraina, Captain Tucker giving the date of her death as 1888, while his learned friends and the other witnesses put it down in 1889 and 1890. His Honor said that he would take the date given by the Native Land Court, which was August, 1890, as correct.

Mr Bell said that the evidence of Hena Kara went to show that Kataraina died six or eight months after the execution of the transfer by Hugh Finn. There was no concealed fraud as far as Kataraina was concerned. She was aware of the trust and of the transfer, and she did not object. The plaintiffs had discovered a matter which, if she herself had lived, she would not have called into question. It was proposed to call Mr Jones, the interpreter, to prove the date of the deed of revocation, and also Mr G. Grant to speak to the value of the land at the time, 1886. As a matter of fact, the land was not worth for years afterwards the price given for it.. He was sure that Capt. Tucker could himself stato that the land at the time it was transferred was not worth what Mr Finn’s costs were worth.

His Honor : The plaintiffs have given no evidence that the land was worth more than £390. In conclusion Mr Bell stated that he appeared for an officer of the Court, and it was most unpleasant for Mr Finn after being a member of the Bar for so long to have such a claim made against him, for there were, counsel added, a great many people who were prepared to believe the worst. He would call Mr Grant to prove, the value of the land. " i ,

Further hearing of the case was admurnod until this morning at 10 o’clock.-