A SEQUEL TO THE CATHRO CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LVIII, Issue 72, 22 September 1899, Page 6

A SEQUEL TO THE CATHRO CASE.

— ~« Iv tho Supremo Court to-day, boforo tho Chief Justice, an action was begun for tho recovery of certain moneys concerned in. tho transactions in. connection with which Wulter Nicol Cathro, solicitor, was lately sentenced to a term of imprisonment for misappropriation. In tho charge against Cathro it was set out that he hud been entrusted by his employer, John Prior, solicitor, of FeUding, to pay a sum to Messrs. Moorhouso and lladiicld, solicitors, Wellington, as solicitors for Mr. W. P. Studhoime, in respect of a loan obtained from tho Advances to Settlers Office. Plaintiff in the present notion is Willium Paul Stuaholme, farmer, of Kakahu, Canterbury, and defendant is Superintendent of tho Government Advances Office. Plaintiff in his statement of claim j«ts out that in January, 1899, ho agreed to obtain a loan of £3000 from tho d sfendant, to bo secured by .1 first mortg. ige over the freehold of section 63, blocks !<.& and 14, in tho Muungakarelu survey d istrict, over which section plaintiff had « leaso from the Crown with a right of fjreo purchase. In Febnuary, 1899, tho mortgage was executed, and £800 of the loan was naid to tho plaintiff, and £1098 Us 9d was, under tho plaintiff's instructions, applied by defendant in obtaining tho fco simnlo of tho land, making in all £1898 9s 9u paid to piuinhff or on his account. Tho balance of tho loan', namely, £1101 10s 3d, had not— so plaintiff alleged -been paid to him ; that amount was, however, paid, on tho 31st January, 1899, to deiendant's solicitor at Fcildiug (Mr. P>-ioi), who was mot plaintiff's solicitor, and never held tho money or any part of il for plaintiff. On the 3rd February, 1899, £1084 10s 3d, part of the balance of £1101 10s 3d, was misappropriated by Mr. Prior's clerk, and non& of that money had over reached pluiutiff or his agejjts. Plaintiff aHeges that the £1101 10s 3d was held by the solicitor (Mr. Prior) up to tho date of the misappropriation for and on account of defendant, and that he- (Prior) had no authority to pay the sum or u.ny part of it to plaintiff until tho 4th March, 1899. Plaintiff had applied to defendant to pay him the £1101 10s 3d, but he had refused, wherefore pluintiff prayed judgment for £1101 10s 3d, with interest at b per cent, from tho 4th March, 1899, to date of judgment In hia statement of defence defendant Kays that by an order dated 26th January, 1899, plaintiff directed defendant to pay to John Prior, solicitor, Feildiug, £3000, secured by the mortgage (referred to by plaintiff) ; that by writings in January and February, 1899, plaintiff authorised defendant to pay to the Receiver of Land Revenue ut Wellington £1098 9s 9d, which defendant pnid accordingly. On the 30th January, 1899, defendant paid to Mr. Prior tho balance (£l9Ol 10s 3d), of tho £3000, and alleges that Air Prior ••ecoived that sum as agent for and on behalf of plaintiff, pursuant to the terms of theorder of the 26th January, 18^9. Mr. Hadfielcl 'appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Treadwoll for the defendant Evidence was given by W N. Cutlirn us to having cashed a draft for £1084 In 10d at the Bank of N«w Zealand. The money was not paid to Air. Studhoime Witness was mot appointed agent for Mr Stud holme. His position in Air. Prior's office was managing clerk, but he was also practically a partner in the bimnc"-? The cheqm for"£1084 Is lOd was made payable to witness with Mr. Prior's full knowledge and consent. The money wns to bn paid to Messrs. Moorhouse aiid Hadfield by instruction of Mr. W. P. Studhoime. The caso was proceeding as we went to press.