NATIVE AGENT'S FEES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 218, 20 October 1909, Page 4

NATIVE AGENT'S FEES.

QUESTIONED IN COURT. Prior to the advent of the licensid j native agents in New Plymouth a good deal of Native Land Court work, with I its attendant interviews, searches, tiling i ices, and so on, found its way into the office of the general legal practitioner.! The advent oi the agent has diverted the business somewhat. Hence, when one of the latter class was one of the parties in a court case in the S.M. Court yesterday, he found the opposhujjounsel apparently quite familiar witu the work ior which the plaintiff's charges were made, and inclined to submit the whole of the transactions of the "opposition" to a pretty thorough inspection. The cross-examination was exceedingly zealous. The case under notice was me in which T. K. Thompson, licensed native interpreter, residing in New Plymouth, sued Karina Tana for £9 10s f or charges and disbursements in connection with some business undertaken by the plaintiff for the defendant in the Native Land Court. Mr. Wright appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Hutchin ior defendant.

The plaintiff gave particulars of his claim, which' was in connection wit'n procuring a succession order in the estate of the late Mari Tana for the defendant. There were "four cases ia all. (The charges were reasonable, aui according to scale., Mr. Hutehen cross-examined at some length, and gave the plaintiff to understand that he was well experienced in native work of this kind. He defied t'e plaintiff to show him by the Gazette that he had appeared in four cases'for the defendant; there were only two. The plaintiff' could find only two. Subsequent inspection by the Magistrate discoverd the rest, and the plaintiff scored.

Mr. Hutehen, after further questionin" of a very searching character, announced that he was going to prov; that this was a ease of scandalous overcharging. The plaintiff, further cross-exa milieu, said that the cases were brief, and lis didn't take "hours" over thein. Nevertheless, he made his charge for two guineas. Mr. Hutehen considered this extortion. The Bench smilingly remarked that 1 Mr. Hutehen frequently took a guinfo for live minutes' work in Court. The plaintiff further stated that tie had to wait about the Native Laua Court all day. Mr. Hutehen reiterated that he was experienced in Native Land Court work, | and he knew that native agents could get their cases fixed for any hour they liked, and heard. Plaintiff: We Can't.

llir Worship: That's not my experience of the Court, Mr. Hutclien; far from it.

Then Mr. Hutclien doubted the word of tlii- |>lamtili in his claim for search tecs paid. He said that it was an unknown thing for <i clerk of the Native Land Court to charge fees for searches. Plaintiff, however, swore that the fees had 'been paid by him to the clerk. Cross-examination reverted to the length of time the plaintiff had been engaged in the various cases. He had no record of the time spent, and Mo. Hutchen instructed him that it was his duty to keep a record of the tim? spent, for his charges were based on that.

Again the Magistrate intervened on behalf of the witness, and pointed out that it was not obligatory upon him, although it would be convenient anil even desirable.

Then the "scale" was questioned, and it was shown that there was no actuil scale of native agents' charges, but the charges were at his own sweet will, it transpired, too, that the agent had charged his client with the disbursement of a guinea for the license enabling him to appear in the case at the Court. "Tliat's a new wrinkle for the solicitors." said his Worship, "to charge clients for the issue of the certificates entitling them to practise." He said a.. tould not allow the charge in this case. It was also pointed out that the licence only cost « pound. Mr. Hutchen produced a receipt given by the plaintiff to Mr. E. ,h. Humphries, on behalf of defendant, for payment of fl This tli: plaintiff stated was for payment for succession order and search fees. The receipt stated that the amount was 'or "three cases, hearing fees, at £1 per ease." Mr. Hutchen said he. would shovv that the plaintiff had undertaken to do the whole of the work for ,£3, and the .i'.l had been paid. At the close of the plaintiff's case Mr. | Hutchen asked for an adjournment in order that he could make enquiries reI gnrding the alleged payment of fees, etc. .. His Worship said that it was rather unusual for counsel to apply for an adjournment at such a stage. Mr. Hutchen stated that lie had ombeen instructed that morning, and had been surprised at some of the evidence Mr.\ Wright 'said that but for the inucntloes and allegations which had been floating around concerning his client—he could not say they had actually fallen from his friend—he woum have strenuously opposed the application for an adjournment. As it was, iit i would leave the matter entirely in his I Worship's hands. At any rate, if an ad journment were granted, there should | be costs given against the other 6idc. I An adjournment was granted for 11 days, counsel fee of .tils being allowed against defendant.