SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1556, 12 September 1905, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL CASES. DUNLOP V. LYSNAR. The case was resumed yesterday before His Honor Mr Justice Edwards, the defence being continued. Ida Eleanor Lysnar, wife of defendant, gave evidence as to Mr and Mrs Dunlop staying with witness on one Occasion at her house in Peel street, and also at Makaroii. After she went v to live at Kelvin Mr and Mrs Dunlop came |to see her. Witness showed plaintiffs the improvements carried' out. Witness showed them a window taken out of the dining room, which had been boarded up, and plaintiffs said it was a great improvement. Mrs Dunlop said she was pleased Mr and Mrs Lysnar had the place, and said she would rather they had it than anybody j else, as plaintiffs had to sell it. . Later, at . the time of .the general election, Mrs Dunlop came to see witness, and asked her to vote for her husband. Mr Bees cross-examined the witness. She had no recollection of the Dunlops staying at her house between August 9th and 24th of 1898. The Dunlopa were not staying at her house while the cases against the Co-operative Association and Mr Harding were going on in Court. Nellie Greene, in the employ of Mrs Lysnar. gave corroborative evidence. C. J. Hamilton, law clerk, gave evi- - dence as to delivering the letter of August 9, 1898, from Mr Lysnar to Mr Dunlop on the 10th, being unable to find him on the previous day. . In reply to Mr Bees witness said he thought he engrossed a transfer on August, 10th, in.the afternoon. According to witness’ diary there was no entry, and on tlie 10th the entries were notin witness’ writing. He and another kept the book between them. The entries on the 10th were in Mr McCredie’s writing. The entry at the top was engrossing the transfer from Dunlop to Mr Lysnar The consideration on the transfer, £2OO, was not in witness’ handwriting. The consideration in the diaiy was £SO. The first consideration written on the transferwas £2OO in Mr McCredie’s writing, and the figure two was struck out" and one substituted in the same writing. . Then that was struck out and £SO substituted in the same writing. W, S. McGredie, solicitor's clerk, in Me, Lysnar’s employ, remembered preparing a transfer. Ho did not engross it. He was . present on August L 9th in Mr Lysnar’s j office when Mr and Mrs Dnnlop were j there, ' He was called in by Mr Lyenar to bring in a transfer from Mr Dnnlop to him. and to witness it. There was a conversation as to the transfer. The question of. consideration had been left blank, and there was discussion as to how that consideration was to be apportioned aodput in the transfer. The alterations in the* consideration were all in witness' handwriting. Mr Lysnar and Mr Dnnlop conducted the conversation'. The latter wanted £2OO put in the transfer ss consideration* Mr Lysnar, after a little thinking, agreed : to this, and instructed witnessto fill it in • as £2OO. Later Mr Lysnar-said to Dnnlop, that he did not like it apportioned that way. Defendant then mentioned £lO6, and instructed witness to put in £IOO. Witness did so. Still Mr Lysnar did not like it, and told Mr Dunlop that that was not: the proper obnsidecation to - put in, and they finally agreed to. put in , , £SO. Witness was'instructed to strike out ; the £IOO and put jn £SO, which he did. The total eonsideration under disoussion was £250. Witness sew other documents at that time.'He saw a letter, a guarantee, from Mrs Dunlop, 1 whioh he heard read. * Mrs Dnnlop was present during the whole' time. The doouments were read over by Mr Lysnar to Mr and Mrs Dunlop. They were iu Mr Lysnar’e handwriting., Another document was a release of a mortgage, whioh witness was instructed by Mr Lysnar in the room at that time to prepare. At this time there was ikonssion about another solicitor. ; Mr G. Lysnar eame into the room, and asked hie ' brother about bringing in another solicitor. Defendant said something to- the efieot that he had mentioned it to Mr Dunlop, and Mr Dunlop bad said it was ' not necessary. Mr and Mrs Dunlop were both there when this was said. Mr Dunlop said it would oost a good deal to bring * in another solicitor, and ha and his jvife . thoroughly understood the transnotion. ’ His Honor: He is a very olevfir man if he docs. lam not prepared to eay I un-, derstand it now, or that the Court of Appeal oould understand it. Witness stated he saw all tbe signed, and saw a cheque for £SO pass be->£ tween Mr Lysnar and Mr Dunlop. It was • written by defendant, who gave it ,to : Mr Dnolop, who endorsed it and handed it back to Mr Lysnar. A receipt for £SO was given by Mr Lysnar to Mr Dunlop. On August 24th the entries were :.‘i> W. D. Lysnar. Be Mrs Dunlop to you,!? attending Mrs Dunlop at exeoution of ifi ortgage herein.” At this interview he -woe called in by Mr Lysnar to bring in Uhe transfer prepared. Mr and Mrs D’unlop and Mr Lysnar were in the rooim, : There was not ; muoh oohversatid;D. Tho question of solicitor was brought up = again- by Mr Lysnar, »4Ur Dnnlop seemed to get annoyed, and eaid %v -C he did not want another solicitor brought ■ in.' The transfer was read oyer, signed by Mrs Dunlop, and signed by witness. Another letter present on > that ocoaaion was the letter.cancelling the guarantee. It was read over to plaintiffs, and witness . attested its eignature. The word “ Can. celled” on the cancellation of reltasfc/of ■ mortgage was in witness’writing.. Mr - Lysnar instructed himto do this. A 1 receipt was given to Mrs Dunlop by Mr - - Lysnar for £200: Wituess remembered delivering a letter to Mrs Hollywood in November, 1898. The house was. in a bad state externally, and he made a tnemo of it.

By Mr Bees': Witness did mot hear from Mr Lysnar to what purpose this £250 was to be apportioned. Mr Lysnar said he was 1 , hot satisfied in putting £2OO in os consideration, and beyond that he was not satisfied he did not give any reason for putting in the £IOO in lieu of the £2OO. ' ’ v - . His Honor: That’s a lady’s reason’) Mr ' MoOredie. A lawyer gives a'better reason than that. Witness: Defendant' did not giye any other reason. ' His Honor: Well, that is not suffloienl. Did he give a reason ? Witness: None that I know of. His Honor: Don’t fence, Mr MoOredie, Did he or did he not give a reason t. Witness: No. In reply to Mr Bees, witness said he conld not say in which order the doouments were signed. They were all signed at one and the same time, The guarantee prodnoed was by Mr Dunlop for all costs inourred by Mi Lysnar for her mother, and he also witnessed the release of the mortgage given by Mrs Dunlop to Mr Lysnar. Defend, v, ant did not make any explanation of what they meant. He told Mrs Dunlop that she would understand that the guarantee was a guarantee for Mr Dunlop’s COBtS. , ; j Mr Bees: Did Mr Lysnar tel! Mrs Dunlop that tho release was to be security for > the guarantee ? ’ I never heard him say anything to that effect. 1 Did he make any explanation at all except the guarantee ?—He explained the guarantee. Did he make any explanation ?—He read the guarantee over to Mrs Dunlop 1 and asked her if she understood it, Mrs Dunlop said she understood it, Mr Bees: Do you understand it ? His Honor: It is rather a delioate question to ask the witness. Witness said he read the release of mortgage to Mrs Dunlop, Mr Lysnar instructed him to put in tho £2OO consideration. : I N .° money passed beyond the cheque when witness was there. His Honor: Mr McOredie, at this interview, was the property disoussed in anv way ? J Witness: No. Nothing said about the value o! It ?«. NQi

O. H. Lyenur, eolioitor, stated that Mr sod Mr Dunlop woro in his brother's oflloo in August, 1898. On that cicoaaion oertain dooamonts wero being read about Eolvin properly, and witnoss suggested bringing another solicitor into this matter. Defendant said ho had already asked plaintiffs to do so, but they had rofusnd. The documents were all signed and obmpleted. Mr nnd Mrs Danlop both said they understood the transaction, and that there was no necessity to bring in another solicitor. Tho documents were Dnnlop to Lysnar, transfer of Kelvin property, rolaase of a mortgage and a guarantee) from Mrs Dunlop. He remomborod Mr Dunlop getting forms in oonneotion with the bankruptcy, bat did not bring thorn baok to witnoss. The day the Dunlops came in to file defendant left for some days to go to Arowhana. The week the case against Mr Harding was witness went with Mr Tboo. Cooper, now Justice Cooper, to his brother's house. He did not see anything of the Dunlops there. He did not deliver j the letter of August 9th to Mr Danlop, as stated by plaintiffs. . I By Mr Roes: When witness'got into too I room the documents . wore being read. | Defendant had told witnoss the purport of I tho transaction, that defendant was to take I over *i,o property from Danlop, the prioe I being 4250 over and above the mortgage I of *IBOO. 3 , . t . J . Witness understood that defendant had just made tho arrangement when ho told 1 witness. Ho did not say ho had made any* arrangements with Mrs Danlop. He did I not say that Mrs Danlop was to give aj guarantee for the oosts. but only men- I Honed that bo was buying tho property and the amount. I His Honor: What you say is quite impossible from-the doouments, the purohaso of the property for 4250. Of oourse that is your reoolleotion. I Witness said of coarse they knew there J was tbe mortgage to Mrs Danlop fori 4700, but that Was not looked on as any- j thing really. I Mr Rees: Why not 7 I Witoess: The value of tbe property was not there. His Honor: You* had-belter consider I what you are saying. What you say cannot be true. There la the transfer there I you say, and your brother bought the property for 4250 7 Witness : That fa my recollection. | His Honor: Your reoolleotion ie very I bad, or yon ware told something that was I not true. There is a transfer for 4250,1 and there is a ohequo passing baokwards I and forwards aoross the table for 450. Where is the 4200 7 Witness; That was fixed np with the I guarantee of 4200. His Honor ; Nonsense, That was left I to your brother’s option to call it 4200 or I to call it nothing at all. It is impossible, I absolutely impossible. Wifnoan : That is how I understood it at the lime. His Honor : Well, I don’t believe it. Witness: The matter was just mentioned to me incidentally by my brother. I dud not go into it. I Eais Honor: It oannot be true. If &her<i: is a transfer for 4250 it must be accounted for. Wilhess : I daresay it was accounted for that, Mrs Danlop was to give the guarantee for 4200, and the balance 450. His Honor : 4200 7 Witness ! That was what I understood from the documents. Mr Bees : To whom was she to give a guarantee 7 Witness : To Mr Lysnar. Mr Bees : How did Mr Dunlop get ,3250? His Honor: The point is that there is no definite arrangement for 4200. It was left to Lysnar’s option to make it 4200, or do ns he tbonght fit. Witness: I was not in it at all. What I say I was told by my brother daring a few ruinates’ talk, His Honor: Qaite impossible. Witaoss: I do not think your Honor follows me. His Honor: I follow yon perfectly well, July I don’t, believe it. I do not know R’hatyon may have been told. That is anJtber matter. Witness : My brother came and told me m the morning of the 10th, just a few lurried words, that be had arranged to lake the property for 4250. vbile the transaction was going on, I went □. I knew the rale in equity about another solicitor, and I asked them all: * What abont bringing another solicitor nto tbe matter ?" I did not know that mother solicitor was not in there- The 'ew words I had was with my . brother in itiß morning, and that is just what I reeoicot of it. I did not wish to mislead your Bonor in the matter. His Honor: You will find it very dififiiult to do so. If your brother told you rhat you say be told you what upon the hoe of the documents was an untruth. Witness : That was my reoolleotion of it. [ know we did not consider the mortgage ){ 4700 anythiog at all. Mr Bees : Was this your understandng, that Dunlop was to get ‘4250, and ran did not consider the mortgoge of any faVae 7 Witness : That is praotioally tho way I coked upon it. Mr Bees: Wore not you and yonr broher acting as solicitors for Mr Danlop tl this lime ?—We wero acting in several natters, but nothing to do with this proterty. By Dr Findlay: Wbat be said was that lis brother had told him be had arranged o bay tbe property. He (witness) knew lotblog of the arrangement at that time. Some mention was made oi costs. Dunop had agreed to bring in a sum of money or posts. The sum he had in his mind was 4200. W.- Douglas Lysnar, defendant, stated .hat in 1897 he was aoting for the farmers’’ Co-operative Association. He teased to act for tho Association in September, 1897. On the 21st January, 1898, tie commenced to act for Danlop personally, Witness was instructed by him to retain Mr Cooper. From that date to April 5 there was a lot of litigation in connection with Dunlop’s tenders. Witness went to Auckland to* consult Mr Cooper. He was liable to Devore and Cooper for costs in oonneotion with Dunlop’s ease. On April 14th Danlop purchased the Lowe street property, which was taken in his wife’s name some lime later. He could not maik the time the Danlops went to Napier. They were staying at Makarori previous to April, and then at defendant’s town house. - They stayed ! with him but once, in April, and before j they leftGisborne. His first instructions 'in regard to the claim against the Cooperative Association was received from Mr Dodlop in writing from Auckland. The liquidators rejected the claim. He took proceedings to prove it, and tbe Court direoted in July that the case should be heard before a special jury. Jflaintiff was advised by Mr Cooper. He brought tho offer of 4100 ia settlement before plaintiff, but the latter rejected it. Witness wrote to Mr DeLautour, solicitor for the Association, Btating the terms npon which he would agree to settle by Dunlop’s instructions. Tbe action against Harding arose in July, 1898. Mr Cooper stated that be thought there was an action against Harding, but not against the others. He did not at any time agree to da the work against Harding and tho association for disbursements only, nor had he agreed to do the work for what he oould got from the case. From Janu-1 ary to July he had been doing work for Dunlop in regard to those matters. He produced a memorandum showing bis attendance upon plaintiff from the start. Ho bad paid on August 9th, 1898, 454 11s lOd in disbursements on Dunlop’s account. . His coats in addition were 4800. In July c, he made a demand for costs, and Mr DunMop agreed to bring in 4200. On August 4th plaintiff sold hie business to Bennett and Sberratt, and Mrs Dunlop leased tbe promisee. On August Bth Dnnlop came into the office and waDted witness to accept Mrs Dunlop's guarantee. He was to - bring in some cash, and with this and the guarantee witoess agreed to go on. Mrs Dunlop oame with her husband and took part in the disonasion. Nothing was arranged. On the following day Danlop oame by himself, and said he was unable to deal with the Whataupoko property, and asked witness if be would take seourity over Kelvin in lieu of oosts. Mr Dunlop said that Mrs Danlop would give the guarantee. Witness did not agree to anything, bnl said he would make enquiries. He wrote the letter of the 9th of August declining to take the security, Dunlop oame in next day with the letter in his band, and said if witness would not take the property as seourity he had better fwaug? to buy it altogether, frio? to this

Interview plaintiff had repeatedly asked witness to purchase tbo property, but ho had refused. On the 10th it was arranged that witness was to purehaso tho oquity over and abovo tho first mortgage. Tho sum agreed upon was i£2GO, and this was to be credited for his costs. Before the bargain was struck witness stated that ho would not hand tbo briefs to Mr O°°P or until some arrangement was mado. Plaintiff told witness that Mrs Dunlop had a mortgage, and part of tho arrangements were that this mortgage was to be discharged. Disoussion followod as to how the consideration in Mrs Dunlop’s mortgage was to be discharged. In ropiy to His Honor, as to tho reason they discussed Mrs Dudlop’s mortgage, witness said the 00-operative Association wore making a large olaim against Dunlop. He might have been foroed into bankruptcy, and he did not know how that would stand in relation to Mrs Dunlop’s mortgage. Tho Married Women’s Property Aot provides that in the event of bankruptcy the assets of tho wife are to bo brought into tha bankrupt estate. His Honor : It is ohiidish to think' if

boro is a valid mortgage to a woman that t could beoomo an aasot in a bankrupt estate after the mortgage has been die- [ charged. If you were taking seourity it would bo different. I cannot understand you. You had better roduoe your proposition to writing. I cannot understand your verbal explanation. Continuing, witness stated that on the morning of the 10th, before Dunlop left him after disoussing the thing, witness, said it would be neoessary for him to bring in another solicitor. The final wash up of the thing was that witness was to take the property over for £250, and there was to be no guarantee, ho re* presenting the rates and interest had been paid. He said it was not necessary to [ bring in another solicitor when witness suggested he should do so. Later that day Mrs Donlop came in with him. They had a discussion about the solicitor business, and the Dunlops deolined to bring one in. There was then disoussion as to the doouments that were to be signed. Witness slated that be had a doubt in his mind as to the effect of her mortgage in the event of Dunlop’s bankraptoy. He toid him he would complete the papers, | bat would require a guarantee to protect the position until ho could look into the legal aspect of the effect of Mrs Dunlop’s mortgage, and the guarantee directing that was olear was to be giveu up. The documents were written and sigaed in their presonoe. A disoussion arose about the consideration, and wit* ness sent for MoOredie to bring the deed in. At first he was indifferent as to how the consideration should, be split. Dunlop wanted ' to keep his consideration greater than Mrs Dunlop’s, bat witness was adverse to this, requiring the subsiantlal portion to be in Mrs Dunlop’s name. The amounts were altered several times. He read over the letter of the 10th, signed by her, in whioh she gave him the election to register the lease. Dunlop was selling absolutely to him the equity of the property, subject to the mortgages. The briefs were delivered to Mr Cooper the same afternoon. Witness paid oat on behalf of Dnnlop after August 10 abont £BO. Harding’s case was disposed of on the 2Srd. On the 10th the notion Dunlop v. the Co-operative Association was pend:ing before a speoial jury. Witness was to pay the jury fees. In the Interval between the 10th and 24th witness had some conversation with Mr Cooper, in consequence of whioh he spokb to Dnnlop. He told him that he had pat the matter of the purchase before Mr Cooper, who advised that he should take a transfer of Mrs Dunlop’s mortgage instead of acting on the release, and Mr Cooper impressed on him the necessity of bringing in another solioitor. Dnnlop absolutely refused to bring in another solioitor. He said he would bring in Mrs Dunlop and have the

transfer exeouted. He said he wonld not go to the expense of another solicitor, and maintained he was quite able to satisfy himself on the matter. On the 24th the Dunlops oame in. The transfer of mortgage was signed by her ; Bhe asked for oanoellation of her release of mortgage, and witness gave her discharge of her guarantee; also a receipt for £2OO for his costs and oharges. There was never any such promise as alleged by Mrs Dunlop that defendant would write her a letter defining the position. Mrs Dunlop always came with her husband when any important business matter was disoussed. She was a very intelligent woman.

His Honor: I don’t know about an intelligent woman. She might, be, but whether she has intelligence enough to comprehend these doouments is another matter.

Witness, continuing: She was present at some of the conferences with Mr Cooper, and also at interviews with regard to the : liquidation of the company. She took part in these discussions. He had a letter from Dunlop to himself, instructing him to withdraw the action against Harding, and half an hour later Dunlop told him. to disregard it. Witness told him that he would see Mr Cooper. Hedidaee Mr Cooper, and they insisted upon the withdrawal being in Dunlop’s handwriting. The total burden on the property, including arrears of rent, interest, rates, and taxes in August, 1893, was 4141 16s 6d. In addition to that witness epent 4100 in miscellaneous work about the place. Witness took possession about April, 1899. In August, 1899, witness received a letter from plaintiff, asking him to pay a witness’ expenses, which be would refund. Witness did not .advise Dunlop to file. Plaintiffs came to witness in December, 1899, and said they had decided that Dunlop should file, and asked witness if he would advance the money against an order .of Mrs Dunlop’s on Bennett and Sherratt’s. Plaintiff asked witness to go to a meeting of creditors. Witness asked about his costs ? Did he want him to prove for them- Plaintiff said not unless there was trouble with tho creditors. Plaintiffs never once asked witness to render oosts before the present action was brought. Witness had been at Kelvin ever since he took possession. Witness had frequently seen plaintiffs between that date and September, 1903. They had never made any olaim of their interest in Kelvin. The costs on the discontinued action of March 256 b, 1904, amounting to 440 bad not been paid. By Mr Rees: On the 9th Dunlop came in alone. Witness did not see Mrs Dunlop on that date. He saw Danlop alone on the morning of the 10th, and then Danlop suggested that defendant had better buy it if be could not take it as seourity. Witness had a place for a home in Lowe street. His Honor : You were taking over a home subject to a five years' lease ? Witness: I had secured the place in Lowe street, but I was not financially able to build a house immediately. Continuing witness said it was arranged that be should purchase for 4250. When Danlop came in first he spoke. He said, “ You had better buy the place.” Witness said he already told him he didn’t want the place, as he had another property for building on. Dunlop was persistent in asking him to purohase the equity of Whataupoko property, subject to Williams’ mortgage. After a considerable amount of discussion it was agreed he should purchase. He'could not remember the exact words. Witness referred to his diary, which showed an entry on ■ Angust.4tb, attending Danlop in regard to HardiDg’s case; on the sth attending him to swear an affidavit, nothing till the 86b, when there was attendance on Mr and Mrs Dun-

lop re costs and arranged Mrs Dunlop to guarantee same; also attending Dunlop re trial of actions. Mr Rees: Anything about cash there ? Witness: No. It was understood. Was the amount she was to guarantee specified ?—Not to the best of my recollection.

Mr Rees: Take the 9th. Witness read; Attending Dunlop re actions herein, and also discussing matter of cost, when you (Dunlop) offered me securities for same over Whataupoko property, Mrs Dunlop joining in same. Wrote you letter re cost. On the 10th ?—Attending yon and Mrs Dunlop re my costs with Mrs Dunlop’s guarantee to pay the same, and lodged her property you to. her with me as seourity. His Honor said that was a different story.

Mr Rees: There is more of it. The remainder of the entry showed an amount paid, 450, for equity of redemtiou of the property. ,

His Honor: There is the whole story. How do you account for that ? The woman gave you her mortgage (or aecmity, and

tbo man sold you his oquity. Witness: The documents nro thore to spook for themselves. His Honor: But tkoy sot out a different story to yours. According to your own story they don’t show tho faots. -Mr Boos: Thoro is a furthor entry, Mr Lyenar, in your handwriting. Witness ! Bead it.—Attended Dunlop and arrangod to purchase property for £250. Bequestod him to bring in another solicitor, but he deolined. When was that pat in?—About tbo time the transnotion was dono. Mr Bees: If your Honor will look at tho color of tho ink you will soo that it was pul in at a later time than the other.

His Honor (looking at the book): It is a direct contradiction of the other. ' You had better rack your reoollestion, Mr Lysnar. It was not put in at the same time, and it is a flat contradiction o! the other. Raok your memory as to when you wrolo it. Witness: The oolor in the ink— ' His Honor: I won’t argue with you on any point. The entry was not written at the same time as tho othor. Witness: To tho l?est of my rooollection that entry was made about the time. About. the time? —About the time transaction went through. His Honor repeated that the entries wore a contradiction, and that they were not written at the same time, and ho asked oould witness explain, "Why, haying mado the first entry, he had mado the Beoond ? Both were after tho transactions were complete.” Witness said be oould give no more xplanation than they wore there, and had been mado about tho time referred to. Mr Roes: You said that on the forenoon of the 10th Dunlop alono came in and brought the letter. You havo here that Mrs Dunlop came in and deposited her mortgage ns seourity. Witness: That was adjusted on ' the j Kith

His Honor: The entry of tbo 24th shows that this of Mrs Dunlop’s was security, Witness': The documents are there. His Honor: The documents, like many of your documents, by your own showing do not represent facts. Those who depart from the plain, straightforward way of writing down what thoy moan, and I writing down something else always fall into trouble. A mortgage should be a mortgage and a transfer a transfer, and the man who uses a mortgage for a transfer or a transfer for a mortgage generally oomes into trouble. On your own showing these documents do not represent what you have given in evidence. Witness: The documents are there, and speak for themselves. His Honor: It is quite hopeless. Mr Bees : Who gave the instructions for the documents to be drawn ? Witness: There were no Bpeoial instruo lions,

I Do the clerks draw op documents of their own freewill ? Witness said he gave instructions in the ordinary way, and be drew up the letters. You say Mrs Dunlop on Angus! 10th, 1898, agreed to sell you her interest in that mortgage for 4200 ?—That was the intention. Did she consent to do it ?—Yes. What have.you shown in your diary as seourily ?—(No reply.) You wrote to Mr Dunlop about it. Did you tell Mr Cooper when you saw him that you had received this document from Mrs Danlop between the 10th and 24tb as a security ?—No. I showed him the documents and the letter. Did you ahow him that entry ?—No. Mr Rees : Who ordered the 4200 to beput into the consideration ?—To the best j of my reoolleotion that was done at Mr Dunlop’s suggestion; Who Ordered, your clork to put it in ? I did.

His Honor : We can take it that Mr MoOredie's remembrance is oorrect. He drew it to the order of the person who was entitled to order him to do so, Mr Lysnar. _ Mr Rees : You ordered those two alterations ? Yes ; I thought the consideration should be nominal. His Honor said that having this mortgage of 4700 for 4200 why get 450 made separate property and give the whole 4250 to the man whose interest in it was 4450 less than nothing ? On the face of it the document showed a liability of 42050. Continued on page 4.