B. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 121, 2 May 1884, Page 2

B. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) THIS DAY. THAT & FRYER V. CALLAGHAN. Claim £7 0s lOd. for goods supplied. No of defendant. Judgment for amount with costs of Court, 18s. FRYER V. WARD. Adjourned till Tuesday, the 6th inst. JONES V. STEVENS. Withdrawn. REES V, M’DOUGALL. Claim £75 for professional services. Mr. Kenny said they did not admit the agreement in the particulars of the claim. He submitted, under the Law Practitioner’s Act, the agreement was void, as the plaintiff should have forwarded to the defendant a bill of costs for services rendered one month before he brought the action, which he had not done. Mr Rees replied at length, contending that the agreement was good, and that the authorities quoted by Mr Kenny were only in extreme cases. His Worship said he should like the case to be tried on its merits, and would only take a note of Mr Kenny’s objection. W. L. Rees—The defendant and Wi Peri came to me, the latter stating the defendant and others were anxious to make an agreement in regard to the sub-division of the Pukepapa Block. I consented to act for the defendant when he asked me. I had several interviews with him and the natives, and the titles and plans were gone into and ultimately consented to, and it was to the sub-division of the block that I was to appear at the Land Court. It was agreed with the defendant and myself that I was to get £lOO for the work. £25 was to be paid down, and the balance when the subdivision was affected. The order for subdivision was not made at that Court, as it was held that the Court had no jurisdiction, as this was a joint tenancy block, I appeared again in Court in 1883, and the subdivision was affected, and the title was made to Mr. McDougall on my application. Some time afterwards I applied for the £75, and he said that he had sold the property, and he thought that the purchaser was now the liable party. I told him that I had no contract with any purchaser, and I would look to him for payment. Mr. McDougall said he would see what he could do in the matter. The work was done as agreed upon, and I have applied for the money several times, in writing. To Mr. Kenny—The commencement of this took place about February, 1881. I cannot tell when the agreement that I was to get £lOO was made. This was done for the defendants and Mr. Norris, though I only looked to the former for payment. I am not aware of any document about terms, which was not signed. The £25 was paid when the agreement was made. I only received £25. On the sth of February I did not meet the defendant and Norris in the street, asked the defendant to lend me £25, as I was hard up and wanted to go to Wellington. The money was not a loan. I was to do the work as soon as possible. The subdivision was made on my application. Mr. Brassey did not appear for Mr. McPhail for the subdivision of the block. He appeared with me for Mr. McDonald. Mr. McPhail’s name was never mentioned. Mr. Kenny said he would be able to call witnesses to prove that the agreement was that the subdivision should have been effected at the Lands Court in 1831, and the £25 was only a loan. Mr. McDougall—About the end of January 1881, there were several meetings held. The first one of which was at Common’s office. Mr. Graham, Mr. Norris, Mr. Rees, and others were present. There was then some talk about the sub-division of this block. On the 29th January Kempthorne, Maude, myself, and others attended at the plaintiff’s office, and the proposed sub-division was made. The plaintiff was as much interested in the sub-division as I was. Between the 25th of January and sth of February, the plaintiff forwarded a memo of agreement to me, undertaking for the sum of £lOO to subdivide the blocks for Norris and myself. Mr. Norris had the agreement and has now lost it. In the agreement the plaintiff agreed to do this in a given time. On the sth of February I saw the plaintiff, and he came and spoke to me. I told him that Norris and myself did not agree to the agreement he had sent to us. The plaintiff told me he was going to Wellington, and he would be much obliged if I would lend him £25, as he was hard up. Before paying the money I went and saw Mr. Butt and Mr. Graham, and after that I gave the plaintiff the cheque, and he went south that evening. I simply lent him the money. No agreement was entered into with him. I have not paid him any other sum of £25. The land was not subdivided at the Land Court in 1881, and the place was subso qaently sold to M'Phail in 1883. I did not authorise the plaintiff to appear for me me in the Land Court. To Mr Rees—l say again I only lent you the £25. I remember going into Mr Graham’s

office. Ido not remember the conversation that then took place. I do not remember your telling Mr Graham that I had agreed wiHi ’.?■> . ■() /'it Hie sijli’ivi-i-'ii a 1 the next Land Court sittings if possible. I spoke to Mr. Graham on the matter, and he did not tell me anything particular. Mr. Brassey did not see me about the £75. I had no conversation about that money. I have received threatening letters from you, but I never replied to them. I have always denied having made the agreement. I don’t remember denying the agreement to yourself, because I don’t think the subject was brought up. I might have said to you that the new purchaser of the block was liable. I did not ask for the return of the £25, because I did not thing I could get it. When Judge Hcale was sitting at the Land Court, I suppose you were acting for me in the subdivision of the Pukepapa. W. Brassey—l know the block in question. I was retained at the sittings of the Land Court for its subdivision for Mr M’Phail. I made application that 3,000 acres should be cut out in Mr M’DougaU’s name. I obtained the order of subdivision. The order was made out in my office. Mr Rees did not appear with me in that case. Mr Rees appeared for other interests in the Court. To Mr Rees—l cannot recollect whether you appeared for Mr M‘Dougall or not. Mr M‘Dougall had no interest in the block at the time, You may have applied for 3,000 acres for Mr M‘Dougall at the Court. To Mr. Kenny—McDougall had given me to understand that the plaintiff was acting for him in the matter of the sub-divisions of this block. G. C. Noir's—When the Land Court was sitting in 1881, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant. It was not signed by either of them. Wnen the defendant and I were in the plaintiffs office, he drew out an agreement voluntarily, to the effect that he would get the subdivision through the Court for £lOO. We both read the agreement, and I took it home. I cannot produce the document because I have burned it. We afterwards met the plaintiff down the town, and lie promised to get the sub-division of the block at the next sitting of the Land Court, for £25 down. Mr. McDougall was to get a bill for the £25. Mr. Rees asked Mr. McDougall for the £25 as he was hard up, and wanted the money to go to Wellington. Mr. McDougall agreed verbally to the written agreement but only in connection with the sitting of the Court in 1881., Mr. Kenny still adhered to the objection he took at first, that that the bill of costs should have been rendered one month before the action was taken. The evidence proved that there was no written agreement but only a verbal one, which did not hold good, and that the sub-division should have been obtained in 1881, and was not so done until 1883. Therefore the verbal agreement was not adhered to by the plaintiff. It was also proved that the agreement was between McDougal and Norris, if that was so the action was wrongly brought, it should have been brought against both the parties. Mr. Rees replied that with regard to getting the subdivision in 1881. He might have proposed that, but as it was not accepted in writing, it must have passed out of his mind, he had forgotten it, and not getting the subdivision in I’BBl. Brought it on again at the following sittings, and was successful. He contended that the defendant’s conduct was indefensible, as he had entered into the agreement, and now attempted to back out of it. His Worfhip must see that the £25 was on acount of the £lOO, and not as a loan. He submitted he was entitled to payment, as he had really done the work, and as speedily as he possibly could. His Worship said he would reserve his decision to consider the arguments raised by Mr Kenny. Decision reserved till Tuesday next. [Left sitting.]