Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1321, 26 June 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1883.

It is one of the prerogatives of British born subjects to growl, and now that Mr George Clahk has exercised his right, perhaps he will rest satisfied. His allegations with regard to Mr Dickson are clearly shown to have been without foundation in fact, and from the undeniable testimony in support of the general fairness of the transaction beiween Clark and Mr Dickson, no other course was open to Mr Finn, the plaintiff’s solicitor, but to throw up his brief. This, then, is the finale of a case twice tried. In the Resident Magistrate’s Court,the result was the same as that arrived at on Saturday, so that whatever Mr Clark complains of, he cannot murmur at his grievances not being fully ventilated. The simple facts of the case are that Mr Clark, desirous of selling a property burthened with a mortgage of £770, finds in Mr Dickson a purchaser. The property was open for sale to any person choosing to buy. Nor was this the only property Mr Clabk was anxious to sell. He, about the same time, sold other real estate to another person Was it because Mr Dickson is a licensed victualler he was considered fair game? We refer to the case because the impression seems to be abroad that thesoleconsideration Mr Dickson paid Clark was a sum of £56 odd in connection with a life annuity, and that an unfair advantage was taken of the plaintiff. It would appear that each party employed his legal adviser, deeds were properly drawn out, and so far from a nominal consideration being paid to Mr Clark, the actual payments one way and another amounted to over £7OO, irrespective of the ever-recurring

interest on the .£770, the Rtnouni- of i the mortgage, Mr Clark should ■ remember that all through the transaction he in no way acted precipitately. When he wanted to sell, he did precisely as when he wanted the sale annulled—he took legal advice. As to the annuity itself, there is the undoubted testimony of Mr Nolan, solicitor for Mr Dickson that Clark was anxious to have the surrender made, that he was perfectly sober when he executed the document, and further that Mr Nolan explained to Mr Clark the full purport and mean ing of the transaction, Now, why did not Mr Clark then object to the sale to Mr Dickson? The annuity formed part uf the consideration money of the purchase. That win? the time for him to protest it’ the original transaction was a fraud. On the contrary, Mr Nolan stnles on oath that Clark exhibitited anxiety ihat the arrangement about the annuity should be carried out. It Gjems rather late in the day now for Mr Clark to pose as a wrongly used individual. A bargain is a bargain all the world over, and if Mr Clark thinks now he could have dealt more advantageously than he did, that hardly justifies harassing and worrying respectable tradesmen, over a trans action at the time clearly understood by all parties, and when tested by the light of evidence, proved, even to the satisfaction of the opposing counsel, to be like Ctesar’s wife, above suspicion.