Page 4 Advertisements Column 5

Gisborne Times, 26 July 1905, Page 4

'&Ys s ©ft lV o ttEU®r^csrrE&C TtAKERCKAHTJ ciatsfotußcy 1382 ~4^ <?; v OiP>s,P you wi« Blended Isas !dn or SI _ __ Jrom somep olher store or drop us a post:-card m and we wifi see you?-are su| JEAj e§gf JA K£RCHAKti}|} ismisicKynaCty c? (T'©’* O? -Jaj r “ & jC%< vA rifcsk I xjm V. vs !cd^

MAGISTRATE’S COURT-—_i—-o—:-Hm W. D. LYSNAB V. E. M. DUNLOP. JUDGMENT FOB'PLAINTIFF. Judgment was delivered by Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., ycsrorday afternoon in tbe above oase, a claim for legal services and money ndi auood. Mr G. H. Lysnar appeared for plaintiff, and Mr W. L. Beea for defendant.

His Worship, in delivering judgment, said ho had had much difficulty in arriving at a judgment owing to the conflict of evidence. In regard'to tbo hems of April 13, 14, aud 15, under the heading “re offici 1 liquidators P.B. 00-operalivo Association to you,’’ he was of tho opinion that defendant was not liable, as the work therein olaimed for was done on behalf of defendant’s husband, but in reference to the other item i unubr this heading the position was different. Defendant knew that plaintiff: had been retained by her husband in coDneotion with the transfer of the property to her, and allowed him to continue to render his services end complete the transfer. Defendant said thud she told her husband at tbo time he informed her that be bad arranged that the transfer of the property should be made to her, that she would only accept the transfer conditionally that she was not to be made liable for any costs in connection therowitb. Allowing that to be the case, it waa not suggested tbut this was over communicated to plaintiff, and that being so, and defondant having allowed plaintiff to continu" the work, she bad, in Hia Worship’s opinioD, rendered herself liable for all proper charges connected therewith. Instructions were given by defendant’s husband for ail matters relative to the transfer, and he was satisfied from tbo evidence and surrounding circumstances that he was at the time acting as defendant’s agent w th her full knowledge and oonsent. It was also clear that defendant derived the banoSt of plaintiff’s services. His Worship then proceeded to refer to the details of tho claim. In the mailer of a mortgager to Sberriff’s trustees ho was satisfied defendant was liable, and ho also a'lowod the claims in regard to all mattors re Ponsford, re Sberriff’s trustees, re Price, ra insurance claim, remarking in regard to the latter that it was absurd to suppose plaintiff would have moved in the matter without insiructions from defendant or her husband. The services being for the benefit of defendant, she ought to pay for them. Bo Bennett and Sherratt’s rent he did not think plaintiff was entitled to recover, for tho reason thst he was not authorised to act in the matter. Defendant, who at the time was on friendly terms with Mr George Lysnar, wrote to him privately asking him to see about the rent, which he did, and roplied in his own name, end not on bq,j a ]f of plaintiff. Amount disallowed 5s 2d. Be Common, Shelton and 0- 0 ) his'Worship said it seemed to be beyond all doubt that plaintiff was acting on behalf of defendant with her full knowledge and consent. Judgment was given against defendant in the ease, and plaintiff paid tho amount of judgment, as shown by the receipt produced, Defendant’s husband said this was sottled by a promissory note for £2O, and that it was taken by plaintiff as cash. It was obvious that such was not tho case’ and if it had been so aooßptod ho was satisfied that plaintiff would have made an effort to recover the amount, which it was clear he didmot attempt to do. A groat deal had boon made of the fact that the promissory note after-, dishonor was retained by plaintiff/ The explanation given by plaintiff was that ho was holding it as solicitor for defendant, aud was prepared at any time to hand it over to her on demand being made. Plaintiff said that ho informed defendant’s husband of the dishonor of the promissory note. Defendant contended that upon dishonor of the promissory note plaintiff’s duty was to have taken stops for tho recovery of the amount. His Worship held that plaintiff would not have been justified under the circumstances in so acting without special instructions. Bo H. J. Finn v. Dunlop, the claim was allowed. His Worship stated that plaintiff wee much to blame for not having rendered hiß claim to defendant sooner, the I reason given by plaintiff for not having I done so being that ho was aware that defendant was notin good circumstances,and | that he was waiting for her financial posij tiou to improve, . Allowing that to’ have been so, still there was no reason why the bill should not have been rendered earlier, after which plaintiff could have pleased himself as to what time he allowed defendant for pajiuent. It has been suggested that had defendant not chioatened plaintiff with an action nothing would have been heard of the present claim. ' That may possibly ho so ; however, that is not what lam called upon to aocide. What lam asked to decide is whether plaintiff had a right to claim upon defendant, if tho services olaimed for have been rendered and disbursements made under the authority of defendant or through the agenoy of her husband. In my opinion ail I have allowed for was done under defendant’s personal instruction or through the egoncy of her husband. It is obvious from the evidence that defendant received the benefit of tho services to which this claim relates, and that her husband was her business manager, and that being so his actions are binding upon her. Judgment will therefore be for £73 8s lid, costs of Court £2 6s, solicitors' foes £4 14s, witnesses’ fees £1 4s, total £Bl 12s lid.

HANCOCK AND CO '.Have mueh pleasure in intimating that thoir famous' “ IMPERIAL ” ALE AND STOUT Has Been awarded the GOLD MEDAL FOB EXCELLENCES OF QUALITY At ST. LOUIS EXHIBITION 0. TILLEARD NATUSCH. ARCHITECT, LOWE STREET, GISBORNE. s WANTED. WASTED, to ?urohaae—WOOL and skins. , . v Highest Cash Price given at MATAWHBBO WOOL Wv>BK