R.M.COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2991, 31 August 1888, Page 2

R.M.COURT.

/ . DAUIVHPLE V. LmSGSTONE. t | ' (Continued). , j Wm SelUr deposed that ho to ; accounts between "'Livingstone and ; Douglass. The property was valued ■ at £2OOO for; the purpose of the

■ George'Douglas'said lie hadan equal interest in Hhe property with f'x Livingstone, fflis (witness); lare of the property mas sold to Mr Brodie^lbT^lOOO.ileofceMkre stood as it wasV paid his i corumiEssbr| Ulpfin Hue! sale 'of the property w&m \hV sale of, Mfthestook,: : ' .Osman Bro'dieJlposme Afled of a\cer : :tain JpMfeaf Te OraPre|ooonDoufcfV £2oopith Itplat valuation M coihe to an arra||ementl6\pui'oha'Se 'Half of the ipM. If. wal offered tpjiimasaMojelhut"he was 1 not filling topurclH in that way. Had stated aMoMhis inability to do so. for £IOOO, papainetween &Q0 and £SOO o|Bp|l'tfalan| over !a bank fhe stock whichwashaifiits|vp'uji||slie sale •could not if Mr Livingstone had ;^|oiiS'int(j': nership with'iljiinlf^/V: / ' ~'. Cross-examihedlbf iMi\ Bunny: fle only bought!Mr'Bougla.s\ interest iu the property, l --and ;MW)dlrymple knew that he; was'buying.r.n'p':..more. H 9 was present'jnt life office when pit Liyipgstpiie. 'w,as asked to sign .the memo of 25th, October. Mr LiviugstonV'objected to sign it, and him. not to sign it. Livingstone; said, " What can I do ? see how he's got me I" Livingstone went away, and afterwards came back and signed the memo, but he still demurred, stating that he-did not seejha't he . v qwed it. 4|a matter of,.|a|t witrie&'said ho only purchased half the property. Mr Livingstone 'still r liel'd the other half interest,- A deed'of partnership' hid been drawn'' up between theiri; .When witness '.advised 'Mr Living;; 'stprie rnbt'.'to' l sfgn, ordered ,him. (witness) 'out' of the; place. He. however., ■ This concluded the evidence.":■ -:w

Mr Bunny ''dsked' ! if he had :i ariy: case.to answer, I 'as it. was yery'clpar , from tlie evidence only.spld' .Mr, Douglas' interest,.. for which ho bad been paid commission.. He could only instance it as altry on the part of ■■ plaintiff! to get out of his client a,commission of'£29 for a sale which was,' never'' effected; ;i,He*h'ad : iflotpb'er being, sjgiied, hy: %'X(iying-, stone.as he had.the.upper hand..of ihim.-., ■}:■:■<{-;■.■;. o;«: vrt'.f.-". ■ ! :" i .'3 ~:^l! ••;' Some strong' refleotions wore cast ;by Mr Bunny mode of proe'edufe; "';'■*"'; - A ';';''", ',;,. |wugii('th^|pras !l used by : sary.v.i He;would ; ,be iprepareito fake; evidence.asi.toiihow4he: memo, :ot ! 25th October came to be signed'. v >- John.Livingstone,.,the. defendant.-' deposed'- 1 'that' 1 f lie 1 liad ! ' !< not'sdltl' liis interest ih;the ; propert| to Mr Brodie and;he,!'stj!l,;|hjjld ,! ,it!j Mr, ; Brodie bought' Mr Douglas' ihtorest.:''.Mr, Dalryiriple. introduced; Mr /Brodie to him, and'told'him he could not buy 'the whole interest, and that he could'' only buy half, Mr'Brodie arranged to' buy, subject to'.the arbitration between.him (witness) .and.Douglas being settled. ■He signed,the dopu-. ■meat.-!-He told Mr:Dalrympiei-he would be.-always 1 'glad to pay him commission if he sold his.half. He appointed, Dalrymple his' arbitrator because he said it was nothing tut right ho; Bhpuld be .appointed. Mr Dalrymple came to.' him' and said jf. he did not sign l .the: document' agree-irig-to pay him •'commission!: he would make"it ; worse for ; himi in: the*''arbitration;.: 1 ; He ; iieyor took' the documetit "from'Mr Dalrymple. Ho consulted Mr Gawith. Eventually he signed tlie document, as he feared Mr Dalrymple would | make him suffer in the arbitration as lie threatened. He always repudiated any liability to Mr Dalrymple, except for.abilratiori,; which he had paid, i An arraugem'ent;was : ' made betiveeii; i witness,,iiid; Brodie, by;.• which; the. property was made out,,in., the name : of Brodie, and a deed of partnership, was afterwards made between them, which showed he owned half interest. .. In cross-examination, witness said Mr Brodie had not.' relieved him of any liability to 'the Bank, Ho. did, not see that he. derived" any benefit by Mr Brodie coming into the con-: cern. His liabilities to the Bank weronot affected'by the change of partners.;. ; ''. ;il ; ; ' ■'"."' : "; .'" ; ; ;: .: : ." 1 .;; H. H. Smith,' Manager of the Baiik; of .Australasia, -.Masterton,; produced; a deed of assignment from Living'stpne and Douglas to Brodie. Livingstone arid Douglas had a liability to the Jank, and Mr Douglas was, ■released,''aind Mr Brodie taken : ;in his ■place.'; " ...';." " : '', v ;;f':..:..''.

■;, Cross• examined: Mr Livingstone's liability 'was : not; affected by; the change.'.,; ■■'-.':■ . , -r. ;l ■■■■ Charles F.'Gawith'stated he was : acting ! for :, Mr Livingstone hi'the Okurupitr estate, ~'['• Was informed ;tbat, Mr"33|rbdie : ,had; purcli'ased' Mr JDouglas! inlerest in that estate, '.and was aware that Mi\Jalrympje ; ws.' arbitrator,''for Mr-Livingstone; and Mr Sellar for Mr Douglas in settling their •'; partnership' 'accounts. Mr : Livragstohj!' spoketß_';Lim''after v . the' arbjtetion'lias been opeijedj and said, Mr Dalrymple wanted[liral'to pay.tlie, same commission as Douglas paid, •which witness advised him not to ; agree to'.i'Liviugstonojaid Dalrymple w,anted : hiin ; to sign ■ a'•; document .Jypuld make, it Varrii-'for him iff'tlte arl(ra{iMl,;j[|vltness i, svjsesf [liq wasifopdin : sign the document then and repudiato, it '.after,' >/as;; no '. consideration.i was 'given. l Mr'Livingston'e at tli6''preaent ; time holds half share in the Okurupiti estate as 'far as tlio deeds were

concerned. Mr Brodie'simply stepped >i»MMteji , i 0 ««^<<oa A*. ' {(,Tliibclosed fog page. ■ \j(\ J His Worship sucf'tlie case was a, ' . Brodie to the defendants? There 4 , j was - '' j sactioiiKdotopMeSflifougllt: Dalrym- > pie ? It appeared to the Court that "that Brodie was not in a poiiGon to - -*~- buy tho whole of the property,.and bijth (Bfydi#)aXd~dej{i3lant [sss' - ,M I">,, ,p' nl Y ■ W°til# * fey »i. m ->' bought one'half interest-forSrOOO.- —*,- on wbich ho.W Mi M been paid commission, and that hav- , inglbeen paid there was nothing fiuMier fliie-by. the! lltfendadtiLiviiJg-Ma // sWlje, With regard to the Btock ' ' «tii|Jß' was ,riotu% toTßhftffi'jdUkfeC r ßrojlie had ever bought any. With ; . reference to the stamped document wasfybtumed under pressure^.under ™ * .very! peculiar circumstances, and the defendant was perfectly justified in repudiating it. Judgment would bo given for defendant with costs £1 Application for a nonsuit to be entered was refused.

-'FRIDAY,AUGUST 21. Claim £ls 12s Gd for a Boundaryfence. Skipper for'defendants ' The 'plaintiff .•-".:■'. : sought to recover this amount as; ,■ Fabian's share of-the „,. dary fenii| beween' tlieirprqpertiesj j at liopuaranga. Tbe defence was. ; that'tha fence' was erected .contrary . Vamingement ahd ou Tait*s land ::;.- andjioton the boundary,' 'Judgment resery'ed. ■ .. ; ..•':'.■■'" , . *