AN INTERESTING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1555, 11 September 1905, Page 3

AN INTERESTING CASE.

DUNLOP v. LYSNAE,

This caso was resumed in the Supremo Court 'on Saturday before Mr Justice Edwards, who expressed regret that the parties bad been unable to oomo to a settlement. For the plaintiff several more witnesses were called. Mr H. J. Finn, eolioitor, said he remembered a mortgage from J. 0. Dunlop to E. M. Dunlop, wbioh on August 9th, 1898, was handed to Mrs Dunlop, who appeared to have been crying when she oamo for the deed.

Mr J. W. Nolan,3 solicitor, had acted as eolioitor for the Grst mortgage (to Rev. S. Williams) over the Whataupoko property. Mr Lysnar paid the interest due in August, 1898. His name appeared on tho transfer as owner, and witness took it that be was the owner. The original mortgage of £9OO was released, and a fresh mortgage made for £IBOO.

John Coleman, Deputy Assignee, gave evidence as to Dunlop’s bankruptcy, and that he bad been satisGed after enquiry in leaving the Whataupoko property out of Dunlop’s estate. W. J. Quigley, architect and valuer, deposed that the saleable value of the Whataupoko property in 1898 would be from £2300 to £2400; now it was worth £3200. Witness was crosß-examined at length as to the valne. The honso, though built in 1887, was, he said, worth more in 1897. His value, he said, was for the whole property, inclnding tho strip along the river that did not belong to Mr Lysnar. Captain Tncksr, County Chairman, produced She valuation roll for 1898, showing that the portion of Kelvin property in the County was valued at £I7OO, which he considered fair. Ho had not inspeoted the property for valuation purposes, but was guided by the amount he had refused for his own section. Mr W. H. Clayton, builder, gave £2500 as the value of the whole property (including the leasehold sections). By Dr Findlay; The property was now worth £3500. Would yon give that amount for tt ? Witness : I think so. Dr Findlay: Mr Boos and I might agree to take your offer. (Laughter). Witness: I am not a buyer. Continuing, witness said be would allow half an aore for tho house and still bo able to out out eight sections at £125 each.

His Honor: All that is fanciful. No prudent mortgagee would consent to a property beiDg oat up for valuation purposes. Mr R. D. B. Robinson, Town Cl9rk and Valver, valued the Kelvin property as worth a little over £ISOO in 1898, since then valne3 bad Steadily increased, while before that they had been falling. Mr E. P. Joyce, valuer of land, considered the Kelvin property, allowing for If acres, would be worth £2120 in 1898; now the land would be worth £BOO more, and something would have to be taken off the buildings for depreciation. If oat up the sections would bs worth £250 each.

By Dr Findlay: The whole property was now worth £2970. Dr Findlay: Yonr valuations are not always on tbe low side ? Witness : I don’t say so—yon do. Dr Findlay : But are they? Witness : What do you know aboat it ? Dr Findlay: More than yon think. Did yon not ask for £4BOO in a recent case ? Witness: Yes, and yon were one of tbe gentlemen who did me ont of it. (Laughter.)

You had to aooept muoh less ? Yes, but only under compulsion. ContinniDg, witness said he considered that Mr Barton's property worth double in 1898 what he paid for it. He valued Mr Barton’s plaoe at £I6OO. Dr Findlay asked why witness said that Mr Barton’s property not was better than Kelvin ? Witness; Because Kelvin is nearer town.

By your figures if Mr Barton’s house was sold for £BSO. Mr Lysnar’s should have been got for £llsO ? Tbe man who sold to Mr Barton was leaving the district and had to sell. Mr Rees: Would you give Mr Lysnar's value for the property ? Witness: Yes, I’d give it to-morrow, and then make £IOOO out of it. Dr Findlay Baid that plaintiffs appeared to have been lying low for years, and now, I although the defendant had offered to Ist i his Honor assess the fall valao of the pro* perty and allow piaintiffs anything bo thought they wore entitled to. the offer had been refused, the plaintiffs became I the oppressors, and, like Shylook, stood upon their bond, and if successful on tbe I legal position would drive defendant from I what he had come to look on as hie home. I Dr Findlay cited the facts in connection I with litigation in which plaintiffs were Continued on page 4.