Page 4 Advertisements Column 5

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1553, 8 September 1905, Page 4

woro always waiting for Mr Lysnar to rondor his bill of oosts. Counsel: Did ycu write to him at any time for it? Witness j No, I did not. Counsel: This lottor you oxpootod :W i| it to bo writton to your husband on to yoursolf ? Witness; I oortninly oxpootod to roooivo what I asliod for. Oounsol: If it had boon writton to your husband would you bnvo beon satis' ficd ? Witnoss: I supposo i ought not tohavo beon. t Oounsol: Was it not owing to your husband's approaching bankruptcy that the inortgago was givon to you ? Witness: No, it was not. My husband's bankruptcy was under very sudden circumstnncoß, and entiroly unknown by me. His Honor: Was ho insolvent but for this litigation ? Mr Roes: As a matter of fact Dunlop was absolutely solvont at the time. Ro-examined by Mr Roes: Did Mr Lysnar explain to you that you woro put. ting your property entirely at bis meroy ? Witnoss: No; I did not understand that. I was going on his advioo. Mr Roos: Do you understand now wbat was meant?

Witness: No; I cannot honestly say that I do. I could not explain them. Mr Roes: Did Mrs Lysnar express her reluctance to go into tho houso ? Witness: I do uot remember anything of tho kind. Ido not think it is fair to übl: such questions. Eda Hollywood, Hangaroa, deposed that she leased tho Wbataupoko property . in April, 1398, for throe yoarß. She received instructions from Mr Dunlop roI gatding tho rent. Tho.first payment she mado t:i Mr Davios, and tho others to Mr Lysnar. Mr Lysnar never told her that ho was her landlord. Witness had no conversation with Mr Dunlop about tho property after she oommoncod paying Mr Lysnar tho ront. Mr Dunlop authorised certain improvomonts, which wore carried out, but she could not swear these were dono before or after witness commenced paying Mr Lysnhr tho ront. About tho end of January Mr Lysnar told witness that he had possession of the property. Ho did not wish her to leave, but stated from that timo she could romain as his tenant, tho rent' to be paid monthly. Witness continued to oooupy the house for about two months afterwards. She then gave a month’s notice and left, as Mr Lysnar’a terms did not suit her. By Dr Findlay: She did not remember 'getting a notion from Mr Lysnar about the 25th August, 1898, statiDg that Mr Dunlop had transferred the property to him, and asking hor to pay them the rent. She could not say whethor tho alterations authorised by Mr Dunlop were made before or after she commenced paying the rent to Mr Lysnar. Jas. Ohas'. Dunlop, plaintiff, stated that in 1897 he was managing direotor of the Poverty Boy Farmers’ Co-operative Association. About the end of 1897 the I shareholders deoidod to wind up tho As- ! sociation. The liquidators appointed were Mr J. Coleman and witness. Mr Lysnar ;was solicitor. Witness ceased to be a liquidator at the end of November, 1897. Witness brought a law suit ag&ilsfc the Association, on defendant's advice Defendant agreed to aot for witness, It being arranged that he was to be paid out-ofpocket expenses, bat was to depend for bis costs out of the result of tho case. :Mrs Dunlop gave a guarantee to the extent of <£2oo to oover defendant’s costs about the 4th of August,' 1898. Witness and his wife stayed with Mr Lysnar for a fortnight before they left for Napier, on the 24th August, At defendant’s request Mrs Dunlop and witness went to Mr Lysnar’s office on August 9th. Defendant told them that he could not make use of the guarantee, and as he was Bhort of cash himself aßkod for other means. Witness suggested that he should take a mortgage over witness’s interest in the Whataupoko property. This was refused, and witness reosived a loiter by Mr G. Lysnar abou two hours later asking for <£lso. They returned to the offioe, and defendant asked if witness would sell the Whataupoko property, stating that he would not mind buying it for his oosts and the mortgage which tbe Rev. Mr Williams held. Witness said the offer was ridiculous, as the buildings alone were worth what defendant offered,. <£1650. Witness valued tbe property at <£2600. Defendant ultimately agreed to take a transfer of Mrs Dunlop’B interests, stating that if the oases were won he would take his costs out of them and not use her papers at all. If the cases were lost he would render his oosts and give six months in which to pay them. That was on tho 9th. The following morning plaintiffs went to sign the transfers, but only his was ready, whioh was signed, Mrs Dunlop’s guarantee was for £2OO, and tbe balance <£so wa3 put iuto witness’ security, The property was valued at <£2loo. On the 10th witness did hot go baok with Mrs Dunlop, and he did not know anything about the transfer until be saw it in Coart. Tbe document signed by Mrs Dunlop should have been the same as his own. The case against the Co-operative Association was withdrawn, and the case against Mr Harding was gone on with. Mr Nolan, representing Mr Harding, told witness ' that ii the parties met an amicable settlement could be arrived at, but defendant refused to meet counsel for defence. The case went against witness next day, and an' application forh new trial was refused. ; Witness bad never reoeived any memorandum from defendant in regard to costs. In December, 1899, witness filed in bankruptcy. He did so upon defendant’s advioe. Ho did not inolude the Whataupoko property im his assots, beoause he did'not know what position he was in, and defendant had takon possession of the property On the 25th Maroh defendant wrote to witness Btating that Mrs Holliwood had left, and offering to buy certain articles that had been left in the bouse. In regard

to the length of timo allowed to elapse since defendant took possession witness stated be was not in a position to contest a suit, Defendant was unlawfully in possession and witness had not sufficient funds to go to law. Witness was in bad health from 1898 to 1903 and his medical adviser told him to have nothing to do with litigation. Witness: About the time the defendant took possession of the property. Dr Findlay: Had defendant written to you at that time stating that he had purchased the property what would you have replied? Witness: I would have replied stating it was not so.

Dr Findlay then read the following extraot from a letter from defendant to witness I havo since received a peremptory demand from Nolan and Skeet for £B7 128 for arrears of interest, rates and insurance; also a farther one for £l9 19s from the Whataupoko Road Board. Copies of these demands I enolose you. I understand that there is in addition two years’ rates due to the Harbor Board, and further rates duo to Borough. I certainly did not understand that there were all these arrears accumulated against the property, when you transferred it to me. Had I known I would not have taken it over, for the property is not worth to me what it will stand me in when these claims are pi»id. However, the thing is done now, and I will have to pay these items, if they are correot, for they all follow the land. I would be glad if you would let mo know by return mail if these items claimed are correct and properly duo.” Witness’ reply to this was that it was a pity defendant had registered the mortgage so soon. Witness woold try and get the money and pay ofi the mortgage. Witness stated there was nothing in defendant's letter about him having purchased the property. Witness regarded defendant at that time as actiDg as witness’, agent, He did not write to defendant asking him to define the situation as he was not in a position to enter into a lawsuit then. The present suit was the outcome of a letter to defendant. The caso was adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.

ALBION HOTEL, Gladstone Road, Gisborne FRANK HARRIS ... Proprietor Wines and Spirits of the Vory Beat Brands Procurable. Special Attention afforded the ■ Travelling Publi