MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1510, 19 July 1905, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

The case of W. D. Xjysnar v. E. M. Dunlop was continued at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morniug, boforo Mr W. A. Barton, S.M. J. C. Dunlop, accountant, Auckland, huaband of defendant, stated that he first heard that plaintiff had a claim against his wife'for solicitor’s coats in December, ISG3. Witness first commenced overtures to the liquidators of the Poverty Bay Co operative Company for the purchase of their property. He had previously asked hie wife to tender, but she declined. Witness paid

the deposit, and plaintiff was aware of that. Defendant’s name was mentioned a week after the purchase agreement was signed. The property was put into her name. Plaintiff knew that witness Was not acting" on his wife'? b?haTi, as all tha transactions were in' his own name, and on his own behalf. In August, 1898, a mortgage to Sherratt’s trustees :waa signed by Mrs Dunlop, who also signed a guarantee for witness’s costs, past and future. Plaintiff told defendant that there were no costs | against her, and that ho would settle with witness. About tho same time *n August a lease to Bennett and §,b«rra,tt was signed, and in lien of the guarantee a mortgage of ;2.7C0 over witness’s dwelling bouse at Wbataupoko was assigned to Mr Lyanar. Cross examined by Mr G. H. Dysnar, witness stated that after the bankruptcy all matters in the bill of costs should have been rendered to witness. Alf costs prior to that he for. In 1897 the plaintiff agreed to do legal work for wit ness fpc expenses out of pocket. MrDysnar stating he would rely for his other costs on Messrs Hall, Harding, Barker, Adair and j the Co operative Company. ]

After farther cross examination the case was BcjjQjigea notil JO 30 thig.iagjnipg, k.