SUPREME COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1307, 7 October 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

DRURY, APPELLANT, V.CQONBY AND OTHEKS, RESPONI^NTS,^ . . ' : .:.. ■'■ - ■ The following judgment! in this case as ;we recently briefly announced,; was , T \ delivered by Mr Justice Gressoh, and I. transmitted to the Registrar of the Court at Hokitika:— During the argument of this case,; I en- .. tertamed doubts whetner the judgment of the Gourt below could be sustained. ; My -doubts were caused partly by tho pecu- > liatity of the appellant's position as a Mining Advocate, and the difficulty of ascertaining the precise limits of the privileges and liabilities of an office unknown „ to the English law ';[ and partly by the , : fact that the respondents, at the time the agreement was made, were in possession and" helieved that'they.had a valid claim '; ' and that, haying regard to the modern '" ■]) definition of maintenance, ' as given in Findbnr v. Parker (XX Mees and W. 675), ; and adopted by Mr Justice Story and; other text writers, as "the. improperly ; and for the .purpose of stirring up htiga- , tion and strife, encouraging others to - briug actions,' or to make defences which Jmve no right, to makfi," this agreement seemed not to be objectionable on the ground of maintenance. It was clearly , the right of the respondents, believing that they had a well-founded claim, to employ the appellant to defend ; it ; and, '% so far from stirring, tip strife, it was the interest of both appellant and respondents to terminate the litigation (in which' ' they were not the owners) as speedily as possible. Moreover, the defence niade, ~ v howeA T er well-founded in law, cannot be regarded otherwise than as an un* righteous one. •■- For these reasnnß r l took ~ time to consider my judgment. Upon consideration, however, I see no reason to dissent from the judgment of the Court below aa to the invalidity of the agree?? i ment, which appears to be clearly champertous in respect of the share, in thesubject matter of the litigation, which the Appellant was to have* for his services in defending the action ; for I agree with the learned Judge of the District Court that there is nodistinctiou in law as to cham.i » perty by an attorney or any other pewon, . and although possibly the appellant, in ,1a his character of Mining Adyocate and' r/^ quasi Attorney, might have agreed to give ? i his professional services and money for the defence without incurring^he guilt of maintenance, the* share which he was to have-in the matter of the litigation, to.use the langnage of Mr Justice Story, "poisoned the contract" by the ingredient of -" champerty which it introduced,- and so rendered the whole illegal and void. As the decision- upon this question vir-, Tl tually determines the case^ it is unneoesi ) sary.forme to express an opinion ujton, any of the dthergrbnhds of appeal. : Judgment affirmed with. coa^i. .'