DRURY V. COONEY.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1161, 18 April 1872, Page 2

DRURY V. COONEY.

p (to the editor.) Sir — His Honor Judge Harvey, in delivering judgment this morning in Drury v. Cooney, whilst allowing a liberal fee, aaid, or is reported to have said, that " the defendants did not come into Court with ' clean hands,' for although work had unquestionably been done for them by the plaintiff, they had made no offer of payment." I readily admit that until the last month our party made no offer of payment, because I believed, as my mate 3 believed, that Mister Drury understood, as we all understood, that it was a case of "no cure, no pay." I don't understand the notions of professional propriety which prevented my counsel, Mr Pitt, from stating that we had about a month ago, rather than suffer iro-m ITneikMj"au1 TneikMj"au ! Wll li,&§,I i,&§, «?& of coming Drury L5O. My counsel couldn't state it to the Court because, he tells me, the offer was made and was considered " without prejudice." Bother without prejudice and the other antics of the law which drag a man three times into Court to meet the same victorious result, with no prospect of being paid even the costs more than once awarded to us. I am, &c. , Robert Kennedy. Greymouth, April 17, 1872.