SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 4 July 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

I CIVIL BUSINESS. 110YN11I AN V. IJAJIEIITON. This action was hoard before Mr, ' .lusiice Button and a jury of four. Mr Silence (Stratford) uppeared for plaintilt' and ilr E. L. Barton (Ilawera) for defenilant. The pluintilf, Cornelius Jfoynilian, (i.MOrcr, of W liangamomona, formerly of \\ augaiuii, claimed from (Jervase Uisney llamerton, solicitor, of Pat«n, CiiSO alleged to have been lost through tlie negligence of the defendant as plamtiff's solicitor, together with interest from September 20th, 1900, .tlO expanses incurred by plaintiff in travelling i to Kaponga, and the costs of this ac- . tion. Tlie phmtiff alleged that Hainer- , 1011, v.iii i had acted as solicitor for him . f°>' SBVi-r.il years,"about February IDt.i, , 1!)08, recommended him to advance £2BO / to 11. P. 11. Craves on mortgage on a i Kaponga ]iroj)erty. Tlie money was adi vaneed. Craves had bought the prol jierty at Kaponga, and sold it to Arthur

. iilis.s fur .CiJuO, — XoO down and ;C2SO i [ on Jloyniliau advanced the 1 , C2BO 10 Graves, and the morlg.tge was i handed over to Moynihan. JL'laintilf i now alleged that this was not a seen- 1 ritv tlmt would have boon lvconnnen.iert 1 to a client by a prudent solicitor. When ; i:ie amount became due if was not paid. The property at Kaponga was never of sullieient value to justify lofendants advising Moynihan to lend the money. It had never been cf greater value than d!SO, and the mortgage was valueless. Bliss had died, his relatives could not be found, and even if they were found they would be be- ' yond the jurisdiction of the Court, j 1 The defendant as* solicitor for the plumtiff was negligent in advising and reijuesting the plaint-ill to advance £2rfo upon the security of the said mortgage debt, as he had not ascertained the

value of the lands ami premises which were the subject of the mortgage; ' U" if lie diil actually ascertain such value he was negligent in not acquainting the plaintiff with the results of Such tigationsTiio defendant denied that he acted as the solicitor for the plaintiff for i several years prior to the month rf .March, 11103, as alleged in the statement, of claim, and he denied that the plaintiH' from time to time on the «Ivk'c of defendant had advanced moneys on securities recommended (by the defendant. Hamerton admitted that he had requested plaintiff to advance moneys on securities, hut denied that he advised the plaintill' as his solicitor to make such advances. He admitted thai the plaintill' advanced to Graves tliis C2BO 011 mortgage, but denied that he stated tlmt that sum had been advanced to Arthur Bliss by Graves. He admitted that the advance became due and owing 011 the 20th of March, 1905, and was still overdue and unpaid; but that some of the interest had been paid to the plaiutill', but he did not know how much. Defendant denied that the lands at Kaponga were never of greater value than £oU, and that they ware [ never of sullicicnt value as a security 1 for an advance of JC2BO. , Defendant denied negligence, and par- . tieularly denied that he acted for the plaintill' in the matter of making the s loan, 01' that it was his duty to aseer- • tain the value of the lands. The plaintill' had been known as a lender of ; money upon the security of promissory - notes, bills and mortgage, and defend- ! ant frequently submitted to him as did ■ other agents applications for loans for > his consideration. The defendant was : not regularly and invariably employ-ad ' as plaintilf's solicitor, but was acting ' for the persons desiring to borrow the money, if t lie plaintiff made any loss ; in respect of this loan it was in con*>e- ! qucnce of nis own negligence and not ? in consequence of any negligence 011 ill > part of the defendant. : in evidence the plaintill said he , understood at the time of the loan tint I Graves was a wealthy man. Mr Hamerton had always collected his interest. In cross-examination this latter statement was contradicted, the plainI till' stating that he had personally writl ten for the interest due and sued for it. I lie did not know Bliss in this matter at all. He-examined: lie quoted instances wherein Hamerton had repaid to liiin loans advanced. Hannah Moynihan, wile of the plaintill', corroborated this evidence. 11. D. C'outts, Government valuer, said that in February, 1003, the property at liapouga was not worth £2BO. He lixed its value at £B2- ° " l'red. J. J5- Gapper, storekeeper, and II member of the Kaponga Town Boar], " stated that at tint date the. section ,l was not worth more than XSO. It wis !t a narrow tongue of land in danger of being some day washed away by the (; erosion of the Katipokonui stream. 0 In his opening remarks Mr BarUn contended that this solicitor was .101 11 employed as Moynihan's solicitor, and 3 was therefore not responsible. TIIO IJ Judge asked Mr Barton whether, if a I' solicitor went to a niaTnthd offered a ' security, highly recommended it to him; L the man took the solicitor at his word 0 and allowed liini to draw up the deed; would the solicitor not be responsible. ' Mr Barton, '"oMot unless he dishonestly 1 recommends it." His Honor replisqj that the solicitor would also be responsible if he negligently recommended ' the security. Continuing, Mr Barton 0 said the prosecution seemed intent on a holding Mr llamcrton as the endorser 11 of the bill. '! At the conclusion of counsel's addr-ss the Court adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning. | !M D 1 VOUCH. j. BOOX V. BOOS AND CLOW. . In this ease the petitioner, J- \V. - Boon, announced that lie had deUr- .■ mined to go on with the proceedings, . but thanked His Honor for having » given him the opportunity of fully eon--1 sidering the matter. A decree nisi, '.o i granted, with costs against eo-respou--1 dent on the highest scale. , granted.