HAY v. MARSHALL.

Waikato Times, Volume 491, Issue VIII, 13 July 1875, Page 2

HAY v. MARSHALL.

i*cNbf^lit<^£^WAiKA.TO Times Sib, — Perjmt OT^tg' mK^a-few jremarks in reference to Solicitor Hay's letter in yhxv issue ot to-dry. I know it tnusC be verj falling for, Mr Solicitor Hay to Tie pubficly shown his thorough want of knowledge of common law by a junior solicitor, but, sucli ia the case, ani I don't think this insfcauce a singular one. Mr Hay stated in his letter ihat I took CQuragViu his absence to say I had not received a signed < BH^)iNk!ostWorj6^^k?st item in his account- This I can ohjvfflKW fafcfbort," <h& my evidence will show. What I sivd>a^J bil^a&t r^jeiyed a signed bill within a month ufn^ my case agjuib Mason was heard. My reason for stating this was, that oh a previous occasion Solicitor Hay informed me (when askiug for a copy of this item) that lie had forwarded it alon^ witu Mr Walker s account, and that lette f was received many months after the case referred to. My reason for telegraphing £10 io settlemeLt wasCTTlMaed^hiti'ly ou receivin^vlr day's acuount, I * cut next\lpo^co>*K'Ssrd\iVla«We^akd O'Neills and con-mltet' with fheih aV^to it, aodoKSy auNised me to render £10 in settlement. Iv reference to this case of Marshall y. Mason, I deny that Mr Hay was there to conduct the case thtou^hout us he ought to h.ive done. He certainly came into Court, remarked that ne appeared for plaijititf, laid his head ou the table in a seuii-unc.MScioua state, and then left the Uouro a^ain. ijetoftUaJgmeall^vas given, asm my who were there eon*te3t(|y» i"^, Y. in cohclus^MiH; troa&xot $Lv Solicitor Hay's sake, he will be better pnspared\yh"en nVo^ain brings on this case; but,uutil he produces beUer p-oof of wnat he haji doiie lor the £2J t he cannot expect his bill to be paid, I am, &c, William Maeskall. Mangapiko Saw Mill, Te AwamuiUj 10th July ; 1875,