KING VERSUS BURNSIDE.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7176, 11 October 1888, Page 6

KING VERSUS BURNSIDE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sm.— With reference to the report of the case King v Burnside, I trust yon will not refuse the publication of this account and explanation. In the first place, the conveyance from Burnside wa.a not obtained by fraud. He did not say * so. His counsel, under, I suppose, his license to do so, stated it was a fraud, but did not prove it. That statement was contradicted by ray counsel, and I was not called to give evidence to the contrary, as the whole case turned upon the rental value of the property. The defendant obtained from mc certain advances, and g ye mc an agreement for a mortgage, which was registered, and he instructed mc to offer the property for sale without reserve. As there -was no bid up to what was due to mc, it was knocked down to my clerk. Burnside swore positively he gave no such instructions, out on cross-examination he was faced with his own signature, but tried to get out of it by saying, in answer to his counsel, that he did not know what he was signing. After the sale on the 4th July! asked Burnside to try and get a purchaser who would give enough to pay mc, or else, I told him, I should expect him to convey the property. He agreed to this, and to my own knowledge tried every source to get a purchaser, but failed; and then on the 10th August conveyed the proDerty and agreed to give up possession. After waiting until now I thought it time he should leave, and sued him for possession, not without frequent application to quit. Then, for the first time, fraud was introduced into the question, or, I suppose, instructs his counsel to do so. What I complain of is, gentlemen of the legal profession should be allowed to fling broadcast allegations of fraud and that they be afterwards reported as proved. I also complain that, notwithstanding the expert evidence adduced that the place was not worth £20 a year, the learned Magistrate gave judgment against mc, on the ground that the place was worth more; at the same time marking his opinion of the defendant's case by giving Jjim no costs.— Tours, &c, '■— J. B. Kn?G. ,