MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4550, 13 April 1923, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITOR. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. A lengthy case was heard in the Magistrate’s Court on Monday last, when J. F. Rush (Mr Porritt) claimed from J. F. Montague (Mr Hanna) the sum of £9 ss, alleged tp be due for work done and materials supplied to defendant. Plaintiff, sworn, said that after the bridge accident at the Puke Mr Montague appeared for him in the mattei. At that time he had no money to pav defendant. The Ohinemuri County Council was responsible for plaintiff's legal expenses. There had been some delay in getting the money from the county council, so plaintiff-undertook to do such work for defendant would clear up the amount due to him. Subscquentjy the county paid £lO 10s in settlement of the legal expenses to defendant. As soon as the chairman of the county council advised plaintiff to that, effect he rendered an account tp defendant for the work done and material supplied, amounting to £9 ss. When the account was first rendered defendant did not dispute the amount due. The work done was fair and very reasonable. The amount of £9 5s was the full amount, of plaintiff’s claim. Cross-examined by Mr Hanna, plaintiff said that defendant had agreed to the work being done, pending a settlement by the council. Defendant had written asking for a settlement of hi s account, and as there was nothing definite as to a settlement by the council at that time plaintiff suggested that he should do some work for defendant to cut the account out. No agreement was made to pay any balance in cash to defendant.

To Hi« Worship : The arrangemer..’ about working off the account was prior to the council settling the account. No mention was made to the effect that the settlement was to be for a balance of account after allowing for the work that was done. James F. Montague, solicitor,.sworn, said that in June, 1920, he was retained to defend plaintiff on a charge of manslaughter. His fee was £2l. The account for costs was rendered. Plaintiff asked him to send the account to the council. At. that time defendant had not received payment from either the council or Rush. He wrote to plaintiff several times and asked him to square the account, but plaintiff failed tp do so. In January, 1922, defendant took a house in Puke Road. He then wrote to plaintiff and asked for a settlement, or action would be taken. Plaintiff called on defendant and said that he was pre : pared to work out the amount of the account. As defendant did not desire to unduly press plaintiff he allowed him to do some odd jobs of carpentering. Plaintiff also agreed to do some gardening, but failed to turn up. Plaintiff told him that Mr Porritt was pressing him for payment of his account, and asked defendant how much he would take to settle his account. Defendant said £l2 12s after plaintiff had done the carpentering work. Plaintiff later called at defendant’s office and said that the chairman oi the council would call and see defendant and square up the account. Plaintiff then asked if defendant, on receiving the amount of his account in full from the council, would be prepared to make reasonable allowance for the work done by plaintiff. This was agreed to. Mr Robinson, chairman of the council, called at his office and stated that the council was anxious to help plaintiff, but cpuld not agree to pay defendant £2l. Defendant then agreed to accept £l2 12s in settlement of his account with plaintiff. plus the work done by him. Mr Robinson phoned Mr porritt from defendant’s office and advised that defendant had agreed to accept £l2 12s, and would he also reduce his account. Later on Mr Robinspn went to defendant’s office and said that the council would not agree to the £l2 12s, and asked if he would accept. £lO 10s as full settlement. Plaintiff called on defendant a few days afterwards and asked him if he was satisfied with the council’s £lO 10s. Defendant replied that considering the work done by plaintiff he supposed that he would have to be contented. No mention was made by plaintiff that defendant should be paid in cash for the work done.

His Worship, in summing up, said that there was a flat contradiction. The defejidantls evidence was more intelligible and more acceptable than that of the plaintiff. There had been some difficulty in the payment of the legal fee for tlie defence in the Puke bridge case. iHs Worship said lie should have thought that the plaintiff would have been well advised to have accepted the defendant’s attitude. Taking everything into consideration, His Worship said, he would have to find in favour of th? defendant., with solicitor’s fee. £1 Is.