MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1512, 21 July 1905, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

LYSNAB V. DUNLOP. /

Tho hosting of tho oaso W. D. Jjysnar v. E. M. Dunlop was concluded as the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when Mr G. H. Lysnar, counsel for plaintiff, addressed the Court. Ho contended that the work done, sorvices rendered, and money paid as mentioned in tho bill were not denied, and therefore must be takon i as admitted. Defendant did not protend to say the work had not been done, and (the bill of costs had not been paid. Tho defence was an attempt to put the liability on Mr Dunlop while defendant took the benefit of the work done. It was absurd I to suggest that while Dunlop’s liability to plaintiff for costs had to bo guaranteed by Mrs Dunlop that the latter’s liability should bo put on Mr Dunlop, which was in effect defendant’s case. Counsel said although the costs were rendered in 1903 defendant never disputed her liability until after the summons was issued. Tho I question of some of the items being I charged to Mr Dunlop’s acoouut had no bearing on tbo case, and it had been explained that these entries wore really made owing to the first negotiations starting in Dunlop’s name, and then by mistake of the clerk carrying entries oharged in the diaries into the wrong account in the journal. Assuming tho plaintiff had charged the whole of Mrs Dunlop’s work in his books to Dunlop, that would no'

make Dunlop liable to pay unless be bad agreed with the plaintiff that he would be responsible lor payment. He said there could not be any doubt but

that Dunlop is and was * Mrs Dunlop’s agent, although ho absolutely denied that be was ber agent in any of tbe matters in the bill of costs, Dunlop having given

instructions for the transfer, the mortgages and other work which Mrs Dunlop had accepted. Defendant’s and J. O. Dunlop’s evidence was shown to be unreliable aud incorrect in a number of important facte, especially where there was evidence in writing against them. He contended as a matter of law that the work having been done in connection with the defendant’s property, which work she had derived the benefit of, a retainer will bo implied. By subsequently aocopting the work done the defendant ratified the instructions given by her husband, and was therefore liable lor the costs. Mr Lysnar then reviewed the evidence at length, commenting upon J. C. Dunlop’s statement that about the latter part of 1897 ne agreed with the plaintiff that the plaintiff was to do all his legal work for nothing, charging only oostß out of pooket. In addition to which Daniop also said that he (G. H. Lysnar; had told him that plaintiff was also going to give him £SO as well, in consideration of nis having had tbs plaintiff appointed solicitor to the Bank of Australasia, and for having obtained the legal work of the Co-operative Association, also tbs legal work for Messrs Bennett and Sherratt. Mr Lysnar contended that this alleged agreement was flatly contradicted by the plaintiff, who said it was a pare fabrication. It was also contradioted by himself (G-. H. liysnar). .Mr Symes,. the manager of the Bank of Australasia, had given 'evidence that Dunlop had nothing to do with plaintiff being appointed solicitor to the bank. The plaintiff was, according to Dunlop’s evidence, appointed solicitor for the Co operative Association just before it went into liquidation, in 1897, while in fact the investigation was going on, and that as Bennett and Sherratt did not start business until. August, 1898, the question of Dunlop obtaining their legal work when the alleged agreement was mads in 1897 was impossible. Also, why did Mrs Dunlop sign a guarantee for £2OU in August, 1898, to secure her husband’s costs to plaintiff, if this alleged agreement had been in force ? There waß no evidenoe of Mr Dunlop having told his wife of this agreement when io was made. There was alee Mr Dunlop’s letter of April. 1899, to plaintiff repudiating, a claim made by Mr Finn on deiendaot for the preparation of a mortgage, in. which Mr Dunlop alleged only costs oat of pocket were to be charged in consideration of Mr Finn getting work from the Co-operative Association. Continuing, Mr Lysnar said Mr Dunlop had given evidence that he had, shortly after the 10th October, 1898, written the plaintiff requesting him to pay Common, Shelton and Co.’s judgment against Mrs Dunlop for £l2 17s 9d out of To Kani Fere's promissory note for £2O. This note, Mr Lysnar said, wa3 given by Mr J. Frice to plaintiff on 25th June, 1898, as security for £6, rent then due by Frice to defendant, Mr Dunlop having on the 22ud June, 1898, instructed the plaintiff by letter to collect this rent, whieh letter was signed “ Charles Dunlop, for Mrs Dunlop.” And that it appeared the rent due by Price to June, 1898, had been paid, therefore Mr 'Dunlop had no right to claim credit for the promissory note, as he had no interest in it. The plaintiff, held this note as seourity for a debt which had been paid. The promissory note was dishonored on 23rd September, 1898, being about a month before the time Dunlop said he wrote to plaintiff re Common, Shelton and Co.’s elaim.

After counsel had dealt fully with many other points he concluded by quoting authorities in support of his contentions. Mr W. L. Rees, council for defendant, having replied to the law quoted by Mr Lyauar, hie Worship said he would take time to consider his judgment.