"CLIMB DOWN."

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 289, 6 December 1928, Page 9

"CLIMB DOWN."

JUDGE ADVISbS LITIGANT.

"MAN WAITING WITH A GUN."

DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS,

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

HAMILTON, this day.

The case in which Karl Joseph Hegglin, farmer, Aria, sued Abraham and Williams, Ltd., for £3753 for alleged negligence in the management of his farm, collapsed on the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence. Continuing, under cross-examination by Mr. Mackersey, Hegglin denied having received various sums, of money which had been debited against him. Mr. Mackersey confronted the plaintiff with receipts signed by him for the moneys in question and letters confirming the receipts. Plaintiff etill expressed doubt that he had received the money. His Honor: Look here, Mr. Hegglin, why don't you climb down sometimes? When a man is sitting up a tree, and another man is waiting for him with a gun at the. bottom, it is just as well for him to come down. "It seems to me," added his Honor, "that if you were shown a moving picture of the money being handed over to you you would not believe it." Cross-examined with regard to the wool clip, plaintiff denied that he asked for the wool to be reclassed when defendants took it over. Mr. Mackersey produced a letter in which plaintiff asked for it to be reclassed. In the course of a long cross-examina-tion Hegglin was rebuked by the judge, who told him not to exaggerate, and that there was a limit to his (the judge's) patience. His Honor said that certain portions of plaintiff's claim had no legal basis wl;: , vcr. With regard to other porii ii which he said he had not re- [■■■ [>ayment of certain sums, the u< >iit had actually produced ree<:.j.. a for the amounts, supported by letters acknowledging payment. As to the £312 claimed, this money had been repeatedly offered to plaintiff, who had refused to accept it. That money was at present in Court. Hie Honor traversed other items in the claim, and said it narrowed down to the email sum of £3 9/5. Mr. Hampeon (for plaintiff) said that when plaintiff discovered the error of £312, he believed this was deliberate, and so impressed was he with the nature of his claim that he was not prepared to accept any legal advice given him, and nothing but a declaration from the Court would satisfy him. Mr. Mackersey said that defendants had a complete answer to every item of plaintiff's claim. The firm had, as a matter of fact, 'been carrying Hegglin on their back since 1913, and had treated him generously. Hie Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for £372 4/1, including the £312 admitted by defendants and repeatedly offered to plaintiff. Mr. Mackersey held that defendants were entitled to have their £osts in the action paid. Hie Honor agreed, and said costs should be on tie full amount claimed, £3753. Mr. Mackersey said he would accept the costs as on a one-day trial only.