MAGISTRATES COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 183, 5 August 1903, Page 4

MAGISTRATES COURT.

MoKDAY, August 3rd.—Before Mr. B. L Stanford, B.M.

NATIVE LAND CASE. W. Humphries v. J. F. Hooker. Claim £25 for services rendered for the defendant in re ; prct of the purchase of some Maori land There was also a claim for goods supplied, £2 13s 2d, but this was paid into Court. Mr Hutchen appeared for the plaintiff and Mr F. Wilson (Boy and Wil- ■ son) for the dtfendant. Mr Hu'chen opened and called

Reginald Bayl»y, of tbe local Deeds end Stamps Office, who gave formal evidence as to documents filed in the office.

\V. Humphries gave evidence that he performed ce»t in Eervic. s in respect of Reserve K iu Huia district, lit did work 10 enable defendant to ge ! the iand put through tlio H went to Wfelling;o!i and got a petitiuu presented to Pa'liameni; for Hooker. There v-as an :,g;etmens between himself and Jfccker, in which Hooker agreed to p->y him £25 for his services as SDon as he got his title to Reserve K. This agreement he handed to Mr Hu'chen.

By Mr Wilson : He hid considerable native lands that he wanted to get through hircEelf, ard unl<ss th?y pot an Act through they would rot have gob a title. He was the oniy one who was working to get an Act; through, and the prssicg of the Act benefitted all. It was on account of his efforts that the Validation Couit sat here to hear the disputed titles. David Hutchen, solicitor, stated the agreement was handed to him by plaintiff when witness t.nd Mr Richmond were in partnership, acd it had evidently gone astray. They dissolved partnership in May, 1900. Ry Mr Wilson: The agreement was drawn out by Mr Shailer Weston, and [ was properly stamped. Evidence was given at some length regarding the agreement by F. W. Richmond, solicitor, 0. W. Wesiop, of Weston and Weston, solicitors, as to the less of the agreement, as they had been unable to find it.

Mr Wilson applied for a non suit, contending the loss of the agreement had not been proved. The S.M. thought it had. Mr Wilson then gave evidence regarding certain documents which had gone theough bis bandti while managing clerk for Mr Shailer Weston, and said the agreement was not emongßt them. This was in 1900.

Mr Hutchen said he was referring to 1902.

J. F. Hooker, the defendant, gave evidence that it was several years before he got Reserve K through. He worked with Humphries to gut the | iand through as they had tbe same oV«ject in getting land tbr ugh. They had an agreement, in which Humphries was to be paid a sum provid- d he got the Reserve for defendant. No sum, he believ:d, was stated. Mr; Shailer Weston afterwards got the land put through the Validation Court. I Witness had had considerable correspondence and wo k ovfr getting the land through. Tha missing a; re:m?nt was in Mr Humphries' writing and not in Mr Westou's as far as witness could recollect. Mr Hutchen crcs* examined witness. Mr Wilson held that io the abser.ee of the agreement the pl.i-itiff must fail. Tj prove the loss cf tha agreement it was to got Mr Shailer Wesson's evidence on the point before secondary e?idence of loss was tiken.

His Worship said Humphries was to be pud if he got tbe title to Hooker's land.

Mr Wileon : But it was the so-called washing up Act that gave Hoaker his life,

His Worship : And Humphries claims that he g t that Aci put through.

Mr Hutch.n contended that the plaintiff f.htuld succeed. His Worship thought that the phiotiff sbculd succeed. Hooker admitted theie was an ageecaent between him and Humphries, and that Hooker was to pay Humphries if tbe latter got him a title for the land. Humphries did work, and evidently his efforts got 'he Act paesed, and hence the titles were obtained through Humphries' efforts. Judgment would be for the amount of claim £25. Mr Wilson : Without interest ? Hr Hutchen said that his client was entitled to interest.

His Worship gave judgment for £29 16s 6d, including interest; costs £1 16s; witnesses' expenses £2; solicitor's fee £2 12, less- £2 13s 2d paid into Court. This left £33 lis 4d to pay for I the judgment.