CLAIM FOR £1790.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 February 1927, Page 1

CLAIM FOR £1790.

[by TEBYGI’AVH I'KR PEESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, Feb. 24.

An action that revives recollections of a. tragedy which occurred on January 2nd., 1923, when Puki \Yi Maihi, of Waipawa, Hawke’s Bay, murdered his wife through jealousy, and then committed suicide by shooting, was heard in the Supreme Court before Air Justice Herdmau. George Hutchison, barrister and solictor, who conducted his own case, sued tlie Native Trustee (Air P. B. Cooke, of' AYcllington) as Administrator of Maihi’s estate, claiming £439 under an alleged mortgage given, bv the deceased, and also £717 for cash advances, and £634 for costs, as well as interest to be calculated.

1 Included in the claim for costs was £419 with respect to a trip made by the plaintiff to England to argue, before the Privy Council Judicial Committee on the question of leave to appeal against a decision of the Native Appellate Court. Ten grounds of defence were filed. The Trustee alleged undue influence in that plaintiff had acted as solicitor for a deceased native who had no independent advice. It was submitted that the document purporting ito Be a mortgage was void, on this ground, and also because it had not been confirmed by the Native Land Court, or the Native Land Board, and that, in the absence of a legal mortgage, the claim being more than six years old, was barred by the statute of limitations. Further, it was contended the native was an undischarged bankrupt at tbo time of the execution of the mortgage document, and that the £419 being charged for a lump sum was unenforceable, because there was no agreement in writing with respect to it, while other charges in the bill of costs had not been taxed. The Trustee counter-claimed for £207. rents collected under the mortgage document.

Tn a preliminary discussion, Mr Hutchison admitted the mortgage document was ineffective as an alienation of native land, or as a mortgage, hut he submitted that it. had the effect as a deed of personal covenant, which would postpone for 12 years the application of the Statute of Limitation. Another ground on which he argued his claim was not statute-barred as to his hill of costs was that, among the filed documents was an account stated in April. 1921. to which deceased appended his initials, thus acknowledging the debt, less than six years before tlie commencement of the action. Mr Cooke argued that, in view of the Law Practitioners Act, that a solicitor may agree with a client “not being an aboriginal native” to pay a lump sum for costs, such agreement with a Maori was void, and also that the plaintiff’s admitted omission to advise his client on certain other points excluded his right to recover. Mr Hutchison said that when, ho developed his case, he would be able to prove that deceased had the advice of another solicitor. The case was adjourned until tomorrow.