RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1022, 12 January 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Tuesday, 10th January, 1882. [Before M. Prick, Esq., R.M.] E. F. HARRIS V. J. CLARKE. In this case the plaintiff, who is a licensed Interpreter, practising in Gisborne, sued the defendant, who is a runhoider, for the sum of £25 being balance due of £5O, the amount alleged to have been agreed upon to be paid by the defendant as a retainer for his services in assisting to complete his tide to several blocks of land, under der negotiation formerly by the firm of J. Harris and Ferguson, whose interests were subsequendy acquired by the defendant. Mr W. L. Rees appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Willoughby Brassey for the defendant. E. F. Harris, sworn, deposed he was a licensed Interpreter and resident in Gisborne. Had met the defendant, and in January, 1881, went with him through an abstract of title shewing some of the shares purchased in the different blocks now held by defendant. The properties were those formerly known as Harris and Ferguesou’s run. After going through the abstract of titles, witness raised the question of receiving a sum of £5O as a retainer. Mr Graham, who was present at the interview, said he could not recollect having made any such offer. After some further conversation Mr Clarke said that it would be all right. Mr Grahatn said that he made no offer, but that it was suggested by Mr Matthews, of the Bank, that some such offer should be made. Eventually Mr Clarke agreed to give witness the £5O. The work to be performed by witness was discussed. Witness was to give all the information he possessed with respect to the outstanding shares, and to do what he could to facilitate the completion of Mr Clarke’s title, and furnish advice and assistance in purchasing outstanding shares. In addition to the £5O witness was to be paid the ordinary Interpreter’s fees for translating or interpreting deeds or other documents. Mr Clarke said he would give £25 on account. On the 3rd February following, witners got the £25. Witness understood Mr Graham and Mr Clarke to be partners at the time in the transaction. Witness had no doubt as to Clarke’s intention of giving him the £5O.

By Mr Rees: The £5O was separate from any other payment I was to receive. It was not until July that witness learned Mr Clarke refused to pay the remaining £25. Asked Clarke for it that month. He said he did not consider himself indebted to witness; and told him that he had done nothing for the money. Witness had done ail that ho had been asked to do. Ah/iays gave information to Clarke and Graham between December and March when they caine to him. Witness found documents belonging to tho estate and did all that he could to help the new owners. Cross-examined by Mr Brassey: Was looking after my brother’s inintercsts in tie firm of Harris and Fergusson before doing anything for Clarke. Clarke did not pay the £25 on the day of the interview. Did not ask Clarke to advance the £25 by way of loan. Was quite sure defendant advanced the £25 on account of the £5O. Did not recollect going to Clarke before witness went up the Coast and asking him for a loan of £l3. Mr Clarke never admitted or contradicted the agreement.

By the Bench : Mr Clarke agreed at the interview to my receiving the retainer. Had done other work for Mr Clarke before receiving the retainer. John Clarke, sworn, deposed he was a sheepfarmer, residing at Opou. Could not say whether or not he went through abstract of titles with plaintiff at the interview referred to with Messrs Graham and Harris. Believed the interview only lasted a few minutes. Harris was asking for a large sum of money. Eventually gave the £25, but expected to get some work in return done for it. Had paid hi tn other sums of money on different occasions. Did not deduct subsequent payment of £8 made to Harris on account of £25 advanced, because witness thought defendant needed the money. Had no receipt for the £25. Negotiations for purchase of Harris and Fergusson's estate were completed about the Ist January, 1880. Mr Harris was doing other Interpreter’s work for me.

Cross examined by Mr Brassey; It was the list of names of the grantees and not the abstract of title to the estate Harris and witness went over.

By the Court: Had paid Harris money on three different occasions. The £25 paid to Harris was a loan, to be repaid by him out of professional work to be. done. Witness could not find Harris to do his work. He was always absent on other business.

Andrew Graham, sworn, deposed he had some interest in the properties referred to. Remembered au interview at which Clarke, Harris, and witness were present. Recollected Clarke giving Harris a cheque for £25 at one of the interviews. Witness told Harris that he believed Mr Clarke had some intention of giving a sum of £5O on the advice of Mr Matthews. Did not know whether the £5O was to be as a retainer or not. Understood that specific work was to be done for the money. Harris was to assist in various ways in completing the titles to these blocks bought from Harris and Fergusson. Clarke did not, in witness’s presence, definitely agree to give the £5O.

Cross-examined hyMr Rees: There were so many interviews that witness did not remember them all. The cheque was given Harris with a certain amount of reluctance. Had Harris been zealous in the work, witness had no doubt the £5O would have been paid. Was not a partner with Mr Clarke at the time.

By the Bench: The different interviews extended over three months. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs.