SOLICITORS’ TEST CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2750, 26 June 1924, Page 2

SOLICITORS’ TEST CASE.

AGAINST FOXTON BOROUGH

COUNCIL.

At thp Palmerston X. S.M. Court on Tuesday, before Air J. L. Stout, S.Af., W. L. Fitzberberl and L. A lira hah, solicitors, Palmerston X. carrying on business under the name of Hankins’ Fitzherbert and Abraham, proceeded against the Alayor, councillors and burgesses of ihe borough of Foxton, claiming £ls 1(1 fi for professional services rendered and moneys allegedly paid bv them as solicitors for (lie defendant. AH Abraham represented the plaintiffs and Air Borgin appeared for Ihe defendant corporation.

Tn outlining the circumstances of Ihe ease, Air Abraham said that the charges in dispute had been incurred in connection with work done by plaintiffs in effecting n transfer of land from the Alanawatn Race-eour.-c Board of Trustees (Foxton) to the Foxton Borough » Council. Some difficulty had been encountered in effecting the transfer. The District Land Registrar then concerned had agreed to waive certain restrictions which would hamper the transfer and had decided to put it through on certain conditions, but the title had been mislaid in the Lands Office. Two years and nine months later, a new registrar had refused to put the deed through. Plaintiffs had then got a clause inserted in the Washing-up Bill and this enabled the proper registration of the transfer. The defendant council objected to the extra legal charges so incurred, and alleged that*the inclusion of the clause in the Washing-up Bill had not been sanctioned by it. AY. L. Fitzherbert, a member of the plaintiff firm, gave evidence as to details of the transaction, stating that it was at his suggestion and with the knowledge of defendant council that a clause had been inserted in the Washing-up Bill. This suggestion was made to the Racecourse trustees and not to defendant corporation. The charges made lie stated, were moderate. He admitted that, when lie wrote defendants advising that deeds would not be registered and asked for the Cduneil’s instructions 1 the Council replied that they were not willing to incur further legal expenses at present and that they would leave the matter in abeyance, it was ten mou tlm later that he sent a draft of the proposed legislation to the Council for approval. No mention was then made as to costs.

Mr Bergin stated that no exception was taken to the amount of the charges, but the question was who was legally liable to pay them —the council or the Manawatu Racecourse .Board of Trustees, .and he argued that, apart from the illegality of the original contract, the evidence aon Id prove that the Manawatu Racecourse Trustees and not the defendants had instructed the plaintiffs to do the work forming the basis of this action.

John Chrystall, Mayor of Foxlon, giving evidence for the defendant council, said that the plaintiffs had been instructed to effect the transfer in question and the council received a bill of fill 10/- for the costs.

Two years and nine months later the council found that the transfer was not properly registered and then it was that a clause was 'inserted in the Washing-up Bill and the extra charges were incurred. In January, 1023, ALr John Kehbell wrote the council suggesting that defendant instruct its solicitors to collaborate with plaintiff's and asking for the council's support of the proposed legislation. In reply he had made it clear to the chairman of the racecourse Board of Trustees, Mr John Kebbell, that [he council agieed to having the transfer validated by a clause in the Washing-up Bill provided the council was not put to any further expense in the matter.

His Worship heard argument as to liie poiuT on whose instructions tlie clause had finally been insei'ted in the Bill and who therefore was Ijnble for the cost so incurred.

In giving judgment for defendant council be said that the chief question was who was liable to pay the legal costs of the final validation of ' tae transfer —the racecourse Board or the council —and he ruled on the evidence and correspondence produced that the latter was not liable. It appeared that the chairman of the racecourse Board had received a letter from the Foxton Borough Council which exonerated the council from payment and in. the circumstances the plaintiffs were deemed to be aware of that letter.