A LAND DEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 March 1922, Page 6

A LAND DEAL.

JOHNSTON v. CORRIGAN. SOME LIVELY INTERLUDES. BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL. The Supreme Court action, in which James J. Johnston claimed £604 from J. R. and A. Corrigan, was continued before Mr. Justice Chapman at New Plymouth yesterday. The parties were residents of the Hawera district, and the case concerned the possession of certain land (Native lease) on the Fraser Road. The evidence of defendant, J. R. Corrigan, which was commenced the previous day, was concluded, and cross-ex-amination was commenced by Mr. Spratt. It had not gone far, however, before counsel and witness came to halts. A lot of questions and answers, evidently concerning past deals, came to light, and there were some rather brisk passages, necessitating His Honor’s intervention on occasions. The "first hint of personal recriminations which brought trouble was given when Corrigan was asked by counsel as to a certain date. He replied: “It is just about the time you said you would get half of what I possessed. Do you remember that ?” Counsel protested to His Honor at being subjected to personal attacks. His Honor: '“The man is doing his ease harm the whole time. I started with a fair appreciation of the value of his evidence. My impression, however, is that when a inan indulges in these personalities he does it to hide something else.” The witness proceeded to offer an explanation, and said His Honor did not realise what was at the back of everything. His Honor advised the witness to hold his tongue, and go on with the evidence. All that was wanted was truthful evidence. The witness: And I am trying to give truthful evidence. BRISK CROSS-EXAMtNATION. Matters progressed only fairly after ) this, however, and it was only a few minutes when the examination developed into a rapid question and answer series between the parties. “In your dealings with Natives (counsel continued) it has not always been the guileless Native that has got away with the hoot?—No; some of the others got away with it. Have you not turned round on your own lawyers? —No. Did not Mr. Jack, of Wanganui, act for you?—He purported to sign a memo, which yon gave him. He found that he fell in.

I submit that it is your reputation that you will not hesitate to repudiate any act when it will suit your purpose?—l have no hesitation in saying that my reputation will stand up against anybody’s. You told us you were chairman of the Hawera Dairy Company. I suppose that is a creditable position? —I expect the shareholders would not have put me there if they did not think me fit. But do you not control a big number of votes of that company? —No. I control twenty votes, if you want to know. Has there not been very grave, dissatisfaction in the company with your regime?—No. Have there not been repeated efforts to get rid of you ?—Well, at the last poll, the heaviest there has been, I was 100 above anybody else. I suggest that your position is due to the fact that you control a number of proxies and plump every time? —No. Have not certain directors resigned because they have refused to act with you? —No. I charge you with having, at one of your company’s meetings, misrepresented counsel’s opinions with reference to proxy voting?—No. Is not your name notorious in Hawera ?—No; yours is! ■Would it be fair to say that you are a good friend and a bad enemy ? —No. Do you know that it is hard to get men in Hawera to come forward to testify against you?—l should say that is to my credit. Do you remember the occasion just before the hearing of the last writ against you? —Yes. How many witnesses did you persuade to stay away?—None. A WRIT FOR LIBEL. Have you issued a writ against a member of the Hawera Dairy Company for libel ?—Yes. Has that writ come to trial?—-Not yet. How long ago was it issued? —About four months ago. Can I suggest that it was about three sessions ago?—No. It could not have come on before September. I submit that you have no intention of bringing it to trial?—Why do you say that? If you want to know the reason, I have retained Mr. Wilford, and he has been engaged in Parliamentary duties.

Are you not at this time on friendly relations with this man?—l have never spoken to him. It was a grave accusation, and one alleging a breach of trust in your position of chairman? —Yes. Are you anxious to clear your name? —I have cleared it. Have you cleared it by means of an action which is open to the public? —It will come on in due course. You need not worry your head about that. We can take it, then, that at least one member of the dairy company has had the hardihood to accuse you of a breach of trust?—He was not then a member of the dairy company. How many cases have you heen in during the last five years?—Ever since you told me you were going to have half of what. I* possessed you have tried to get me here every session. You have tried to damn the career of my wife and family, and you are doing that under the cloak of religion. It is a. scurrilous trick. Mr. Spratt: I protest. Did your Honor hear what the witness said? His Honor: I heard the witness . Mt. Spratt (continuing): Have not other solicitors acted against you?— There was a trio of you at Hawera. Do you impute improper motives to other -soliritors? —I don’t know. When the examination of defendant, was concluded the proceedings again assumed more of the serenity which characterises civil cases, and a comparative quietude reigned after the wordy battle between counsel and witness. FURTHER EVIDENCE. Further evidence on behalf of the defence concerned the property which was the subject of the case. P. B. Fitzherbert, solicitor, New Plymouth, said he had been instructed by Corrigan to endeavor to secure a confirmed lease of the land from Hori Toroa. The latter asked a fairly high price. At a stage of the negotiations Toroa saw wit-

ness and told him not to proceed any further with the matter of the lease. The former occupier of the property, John Dwyer, fanner, of Kakatamea, from whom Corrigan took over the goodwill, estimated the carrying capacity of the 68 acres at from 18 to 20 cows, with a horse and a bull. Walter H. Bowler, registrar of the Aotea Maori Land Board, Wanganui, produced the file concerning Hori Toroa’s property. The file showed that Johnston paid the first half-year’s rent on August 8, 1921. Edward Long, farmer, Manaia, estimated that if the 68 acres of Johnston’s lease was fairly well farmed it would carry 20 cows. He considered £2 an acre a good rent. Richard Tiddy, land agent, Hawera, said Johnston came to him and explained that he had a property on the Fraser Road for sale. He thought that £lOOO to £l2OO could be obtained for it. In reply to witness as to who owned the property, Johnston said there were several interested in it. He said it was very suitable to Corrigan, and asked witness to try to sell it to him, as they wanted to get it back on to Corrigan. Witness refused to put the property on the books. He denied Johnston’s statement that he offered £lOOO for the land. Mr. Spratt: “You have business relationships with Corrigan?”—“No.” “Are you not known as one of Corrigan’s proteges ?” —“No.” Frank Lambert, sharemilker in the employ of J. R. Corrigan, said that Johnston approached him and stated that no more cattle were to be put on to the 68 acres, as it was his property. Witness replied that he had no instructions from Corrigan. Johnston said Corrigan could not afford to lose the land as it was the key to the whole property, and he would be along with a fat cheque soon. George A. Duncan, secretary to the Hawera Co-op. Dairy Company, produced figures regarding the payments made to Corrigan and Johnston for milk supplied. Regarding Corrigan’s position of chairman of thle company the witness thought that the relations between the present directors and Corrigan was very friendly. George Preece, Matapu, called on behalf of the plaintiff, denied the evidence given for defendants to the effect that he had offered the lease of the property to the Corrigans for £204.

Evidence was concluded when the court rose till this morning.