COURT OF APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1799, 4 July 1906, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

LYSNAR V. DUNLOP.

(Par Press Association.) Wellington, last night. The Court of Appeal resumed this morn* ing to continue the heating of the case, Lysner v. Dunlop and another. Mr Hosking, proceeding with his agree* ment, contended that appellant wbb not acting as solicitor for respondents in the purchase of the property comprised in the case, and therefore bad no special burden of care plaoed on him. Mr Hcsking spent most of the morning in pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence by re* spondent and bis wife. In the Court below respondent had alleged in his statement of claim that he was in the hands of his solicitor, and that his solicitor bad compelled him to proceed with litiga* tion, but respondent had been advised in the matter by Theo- Cooper (now Mr Jostioe Cooper), whom he had retained as his ooun<el. Mr Hosking contended that appellant was not respondent’s soli* citor at the time of the transaction. Mr Jus'.ioe Edwards : His brother, who was bis manager, olerk, and solicitor, says in his evidence that be was. Mr Hosking: If he did some work for | them that does not create the permanent relation of solicitor and o!ien\ Mr Justice Edwards : The whole question is, was tbe relation between the parties snoh as to imply frand within reason of the law on this point to prevent an abase of the relationship of solicitor an client V— for everyone knows that a olient will sign almost any dooument that his solicitor likes to pat before him. Mr Hosking. continuing, said that th» respondent had gone to appellant to oonduet litigation for him, and Bt tbe same

t'm-i unknown ts appellant had through ano'het solioitoc mo tgaged hia property further to the extent of £7OO. Toia was not an honorable dealing w.th appellant, to incur a large debt to him for law oosta, and then, unknown to him, to encumber hia property ao aa to mike it unlikely that appellant would recover hia costa. That aotion justified appellant in peremptorily demanding oaeh for expenses incurred. Incidentally the amount of the co ta charged by appellant for hia work, £250, waa discussed, and the Chief Jnstioe expressed the opinion' that £250 waa a large amount to oharge for the amount of legal work done by appellant. Mr Hoeking said it seemed to him a reasonable bill of costs.

Mr Jostice Edwards: There is a wellkoown way of dealing with such bills of costs, and it is suoh bills that bring a soandal upon the profession.

Mr Hosking: This bill of costs has been taxed by the proper taxing master. I Mr Justice Edwards : This bill has been taxed by a gentleman for whose character have the very highest regard, but 'it' is lamentable that lie, a magistrate with lio | Supreme Court experience, should be put to the work of taxing.costs which involves special knowledge that he cannot possibly have. In the course of argument, Mr Hosking referred to the evidence Mr Justice Cooper, taken on commission - before the Registrar apd pqt in as evidence, being admitted, on the ground that it vyas taken without respondents being represented and put in without their having any chance of objecting to anv of it.

After argument on the matter, Mr

Skerratt not pressing his objection Mr Hosking was allowed to refer to the

evidence. He referred to it to show that appellant had acted bona fide in the matter. Argument for appellant was not concluded when the Court adjourned for the clay.

Argument for appellant was not concluded when the Court adjourned for the clay.