THE LAW AND THE LAYMAR.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 213, 7 September 1909, Page 4

THE LAW AND THE LAYMAR.

• __ i. -_.;•■ THE INTERPRETATION! 0$ 14| CONTRACT. . Sv INTERESTING REMARKS BY JQ£JUSTICE EDWAffiDS. At the Supreme Court yesterday aftaw noon his Honor Mr. Justice Edward heard argument in the civil action'Hjde v. Cashmore Bros., a claim for damagii for trespass arising out of an allege! breach of contract on the part of jtjji defendants. The contract was one.foi; the cutting and removal of timber. The evidence in this case was heard at the civil sessions three months ago, wKb'. the defendants applied for a nonsuit on the ground that they had complied /nita the terms of the contract. The plaintij alleged a breach of contract, and.coi sequent trespass, the agreement, heiw (allegedly) to cut timber under royalty, The contract provided in affitjnative, words that the defendants might remow the timber within three years. ;' . :

Dr. Bamford appeared for the plaintiff,''.-' Mr. F. E. Baume, K.C., and Mr. MeVeagV argued for the defendants. The hearing of argument was not concluded wlea the Court adjourned until this mornirg. In the course of the argument, his HonMjthe Judge had occasion to make.soni interesting observations upon the interpretation of documents, and upon the duty of lawyeri towards illiterate j laymen. . . j In the course of a lengthy aigth ' ment, Mr. McVeagh sought to ehenf'. that under the terms in which the agreement was drawn the payment , oJ. :• royalties was not a condition precedent to the taking of the timber. He sub- ; mitted that the document in issue was not an ordinary agreement for the- sals of timber, but constituted an express grant of timber under lease.

His Honor: The document must i» construed most strongly against youi clients. They are educated persons, anl the plaintiff is an illiterate man. Moreover, your clients drew the document.

Mr. McVeagh: There i& no suggestion that the plaintiff did nut understand the agreement, your -Honor.

His Honor: That is not the question, The question is. Did the plaintiff understand the construction which you up seeking to put upon the agreement t I should say he certainly did not. - £. Mr McVeagh: Laymen, your Honour must abide by the legal results of doc* ments they enter into even where thosi results were not seen by them, if thgj omitted to avail themselves of the ; guii ance of a legal adviser.

His Honor: No fair lawyer will prepare anything but a fair and re*soml>!» document. Where interests clasl, li( will say that he cannot act for btiSA parties

Mr. McVeagh: Well, I submit, yotn Honor, that this is a grant of timber, and that the payment of royalties U not a condition precedent to the taking of timber. '■'■'■'(■

His Honor: Do you mean to sajjMi McVeagh, that the plaintiff understood from this document that your dirata; could cease to pay royalties and «**■' tinue to take his timber? Why, I : should not have gathered that meaning- itWB the document myself!

Mr. McVeagh: I submit that the CM* struetion to be. put upon the document! is that the payment of royalties WM not a condition precedent to the taking of the timber. It is a specific grant of timber under lease.

His Honor: T know very well w™ was meant. Apart from any construe! tion "which may be put upon it, wk»l is the plain, corns;on-sense meaning-el the document? As I iave already said, the document must be opnstroed' nwe strongly asainst your clients. v Mr- McVeagh went on, *t> argue, till there had been a subsequent payment.*;. £10 by defendants as considerstioirjofrjj an extension- of time beyond three years! The acceptance of that £10 by the plain-. tiff showed his intention.

His Honor: Yes, but his intention wai not what your clients did. I 'have nol the slightest doubt about -what his inten ; tion was. His intention was that the timber should be taken in a reasonable time; not that your clients, after. OX years, should go on to his land and take any timber they pleased. However, I dare say, Mr. McVeagh, that you. »l* quite right in saying that the documeae means what it doesn't mean.

In replying to some of Mr. McVeagh'a contentions, Dr. Bamford «ombatted th* suggestion that the document wasa.leas?. The terms were too vague to supP or ß> such a contention. The document,, h« submitted, was merely an c ' w l tract for the sale of "timber, whether rej garded as an interest iji land or mere-JJ as a sale of goods. There was absolutely] no obligation upon Cashmore Bros, to oo| anything except pay for whatever tbnter they took during three years. Nor-jjJ*.. perty in the trees passed by virtee .o}' the document. Property in the a" 1 not pass to the defendants until they; had been cut and paid for. The extension was in the naturo of an optrjn "if one summer or for a reasonable.tiiW»^l His Honor: " You can't extend *; for a reasonable time—it would be.:;je? Dr. Bamford: " Precisely so,, your Bβ* ot. I contend that this was in the vatm of an option. At any rate, the r'l? h **j! the buyer had lapsed. The coatnw could not be specifically enforced*" • : (Proceeding.) ', .