MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1506, 14 July 1905, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

LYSNAR v. DUNLOP.

The Court yostorday was engaged iti tke case of W. D. Lysnar (Mr G. H. Lysnar) v. E. M. Dunlop (Mr W. L. Rees), a claim of £&& ,5s 2d, balance of account for services rendered, £nd money paid by plaintiff and tbe solicitor of anff foy the defendant. Plaintiff further claimed £l-2 17s 9d for money paid by him for defendant u r . her request on October 26!b, 1898, to Mr H. J. Finn in settlement of a judgment— Common, Shelton and Co. y. defendant. ■ W. D. Lysnar (solicitor) plaintiff, gave evidence in support of his claim.- He stated tbst defendant owned portion of ,paH section, 678/ .Gisborne, with valuablo buildings thereon, sad : plaintiff • claimed against her separate estate. Some pj the work,.was done under.instruetions from defendant, anrl some under her husband’s instructions. .Defendant’s husband for a number of years had been acting a 3 her agent. '• Defendant bad always accepted itbe work done. As far. as witness knew Mr Dunlop bad full power to pledge his Wife’s credit. Mr Dunlop went bankrupt at the end of 1899, and practically Jhe sole basinoss he had done since was to a£t as his wife’s agent. Argument took place as to'whethor eounsel could ask. for the production of books to show to whom the work done was charged up to. The books being produced witness was cross-examined by Mr Bees. ,' The account was made up before the suit brought against witness by the Dunlops, Ip was made up in December, 1903, and there was no special reason for its not being rendered sooner. The bill was allowed to stand down in tbe business of the office, as Mrs Dunlop’s position was improving, and there was no reason to worry her.' Witness received no letter from Mr Dunlop, with regard to Common) '"CSboltou’c matter

Witness never told Mr Dunlop that for anything ho did for him ho would not : charge hun except for foes out of pocket.. That was a coilcoc'ion. and was put for another case, and not this ouo. Witness, on roforonoq t o bis books, found that several of the items wore charged to Mr Dunlop. A note to Mrs ■Dunlop’s account stated that for the balanco of the itoms J. O. Dunlop’s ncoouut was to bo referred to. s In paying Common, SholCon witness ro- , eeivod instruo’ions through Oottoroll and .' Humphries, Napier, and from Mr and Mrs Dunlop when ho mot them in Napier , while returning from Wellington. Tho i liability ta Common', Shelton was not paid by the promissory nonv (produced) by Tu Kani Pore, given by Mr Price, defendant’s tomint, to witness for root. Mrs Dunlop’s olaim, on this promissory note only amounted to £6. Witness had not ngreed to accept the promissory,noto iii payment of his claim, for if he had donosoho would lmve seen that be got the money from To , Kani Pore. Witness treated Mr Dunlop ] all the way through as defendant's agent, although Mr Dunlop did not say in so M many words that ho was his wife’s agent, e The case of witness not rendering Mrs Dunlop an account was not an isolated , one, as he had others remaining ovor for years. , " .

! Re-examined by Mr G. H. Lysnar, witness stated that be did not know the clerk bad mixed up the two accounts of Mr and Mrs Dunlop in tbe journal until ho was j going through tbe bill. In the ledger tho items were correctly rendered, and no bill I had been sent to anyone but. Mrs. Dunlop, j Tbe whole mistako aroto through tho I acoouut starting in Mr Dunlop's name, I owing to tho property thou being his. j This closed the case for tho plaintiff. . I In opening the oaso for the dofencc, Mr I W. L. Roes stated tliqt Mrs Dunlop know J nothing of tho first part of tbe transactions J at all, novor gave instruction's aud novor I authorised her husband to givo any instruo- I tious. Sho did ultimately know that her I

. husband’s uamo was put the transfer, I ; and agreed to allow it to remain thoro, but I her husband put-it thero without any I authority fcoui her-, acid Mr G, Lyana was I with him when they agreed to ask her to I tender for the property, but she declined, I and went away to Napier, Mrs Dunlop j did not want to know anything about the I property, and sho- told her husband she I would net bs responsible for any eosts. I Mr Daalop would Btaio that Mr W. D. I ] Lysnar and Mr G. H. Lvsnar were under j some obligation to him in recard to intro- J duction to practice, and Mr W. D. Lysnar I had told him that ho would make no I Charge against him exams out of pocket fees., Mr Dunlop had gone iota bankruptcy I on tho nrtvico of Mr Lysnar, and Mr Dun- I lop would state 'that be had do authority I from his wife to act for her. There never j I was any supposition until Deoember, 1903, I that Mrs Dunlop was being charged. It I was only after the matter of the house at I Whataupoko, the subject of a Supreme I Court action, that auy aoeouht u‘as made I up. Mr Dunlop would deny that Mr I Lysnar over told him To Kani’a p.n. was dishonored.

E. M. Dunlop, defendant, la hor evidenco supported her counsel's opening statement. ■ Witness denied that plaintiff had received instructions from her to do the work claimed for, nor had she authorised her husband to give instructions. '

After hearing defendant’s evidenoe the case was adjourned until this morning.