THE LEACH ESTATE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1254, 18 October 1884, Page 3

THE LEACH ESTATE.

The affairs of the David Leach Estate have not been wound up yet. At the District Court, Tiraaru, last Thursday, before Judge Ward, James Blyth and George Bolton (as trustees) sued Messrs Matson, Cox and Co. for the sum of £ll3 10s guarantee. jMr Hamersley, instructed by Mr Aspinall, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Wilding for the defendants. The declaration of the plaintiffs set forth that they got a guarantee from Leach's creditors to indemnify them against any expenses they might, be put in recovery of debts due to the estate. This guarantee was signed by Messrs Matson, Cox and others, promising to pay pro rata their share of the expenses. On the strength of this the trustees took action, with the result that they were £230 out of pocket. All those who had signed the guarantee had paid excepting Matson, Cox and Co. The following letters were read : "Our Mr Thomas saw Mr Job Brown on Wednesda}', and got an offer from him to pay all proved creditors 3s 4d in the £, leaving you to proceed against Allan and Stumble if you like. As this offer is more than you were talking of claiming, or cnuld claim after selling the land for £l3O, under these circumstances we think the best course for the Trustees will be to accept the offer, as we feel certain that you will never get a better chance, even without taking into consideration the law costs and chance of getting nothing. We do not like the way Mr Bolton talked, and from what Mr Thomas could gather it would appear that he was working, as Brown has said all along, in the interest of Allan and Stumbles and Mr Ackroyd. Our advice is, see Mr Brown, and if he will carry out the arrangement arrived at, viz., 3s 4d in the £ to everybody, he taking over what he has in hand and the lease, we say close 'with him at once and save further law expenses. We must decline under the circumstance to find any money for law expenses when we can get all or more than we want without going to law at all. Therefore we would like an answer at once as to the position you intend taking up, as at present we don't feel ourselves justified in assisting to fatten lawyers out of our own pocket. Kindly reply by this evening's train. Yours, etc., Matson, Cox and Co." To the foregoing letter, the trustees telegraphed the same day the reply that " Brown's offer not good enough. Decided that law take its course."

Next day, June 12th, the defendants wrote to the trustees :

"Your telegram of yesterday is to hand, in which you say ' Brown's offer not good enough. Decided that law take its course.' We cannot understand the position you are taking up, more especially after the statement you have made to our Mr Thomas, in which you showed that your claim against Mr Brown was very little if anything more than he has (through us) offered in full settlement of your claim. You must remember that his offer does away with the uncertainties of law, and the certainties of large law costs, and was only made by Mr Brown without prejudice for the purpose of saving expenses, both to the estate and to himself. From what we can gather from you as trustees in Leach's estate, we are forced to the conclusion that you aie either actuated by animus against Mr Brown, or working for the benefit of Messrs Allan and Stumbles to the detriment of the estate. This was not intended when you were appointed as trustees for the creditors, and therefore as one of them we must strongly object to be drawn into any law costs in this matter. And now we give you formal notice that it is our intention to hold you personally liable to the estate for any loss which may occurs through your action against Mr Brown, and shall decline to pay any law charges in connection therewith.—Yours, etc., Matson, Cox & Co." George Bolton and James Blyth were examined. They gave evidence to the effect that they that they could not accept the offer of Job Brown of 3s 4d in the £, as the conditions he imposed could not be complied with. Que of of the conditions was that they should give up to Mr Brown the land which they had sold by tender. J. W. White gave evidence with regard to the court cases, Elijah Brown was examined with regard to what occurred at the meeting held on the 10th of January, in Temuka, but could not remember anything about it, and W. Christmas stated he had paid his share of the indemnity. W. G. Aspinall gave evidence to the effect that he had examined Mr White's bill of costs. He did not think it could be reduced by taxation, as a reduction of £SG had been made. The amount of Mr White's bill was £466 5s sd, but £212 18s 5d had been received out of Court, leaving a balance of £253 7s, for which a writ costing £4 19s 6d had been issued. ; The guarantors had agreed to pay, and he had paid Mr White £204 19* 6d. This concluded the plaintiff's case and a good deal of argument followed, in the course of which His Honor remarked that the defendants could not be held responsible for costs of actions commenced after they had withdrawn from the guarantee. Mr Wilding submitted that the costs of the cases taken after the defendants had withdrawn amounted to £lOl. Ho also wished to deduct £25 7s for trustees' commission. The case was adjourned at 5.30 that evening until yesterday morning when it , was again taken up. Several witnesses ware examined from the defence, and a good deal of argument. His Honor gave judgment for the defence with costs.