RANGIORA.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7880, 3 June 1891, Page 3

RANGIORA.

Tuesday, June 2. (Before H. S. Wardell, Esq., R.M., W. Boss, E. R. Goodand A Todd, Esqs. J.P.s) Civil Cases. —W. Vaughan v J. Phillips, £5 Ss; and same v Foster, £19 I3s 4d; adjourned. W. H. Spackman v F. Busch, £5 6s 4d, for professional services, £1 7s 8d tendered, and not accepted. Plaintiff said, as a solicitor of the Supreme Court, he appeared for defendant in the case of Gibbs v Busch in the Resident Magistrate's Court here in jfovember, 1889. About the same time defendant asked him to get a loan of some money, advertised for loan at 5. per cent., and he arranged to get it at 6 per cent.* also fixed cost of the mortgage at £6 15s. He v wrote twice to defendant on December 110b telling him the money was ready for advance, and on the 17th he had prepared everything for the advance. . Mr Busch did not'ineet him as expected on the latter date, and on 24th he saw defendant, who said he had altered his mind and -did not want the money. . To the Bench—The instructions were verbal. To defendant— An arrangement was certainly made for the costs of tho mortgage. Did not say that attendances and letters would not be charged for. Had not said he would conduct the case of Gibbs v Busch for one guinea only, but for the appearance. The second time that Cone was heard he got Mi* Williams to appear, as he was not able to attend. I told you the money advertised at 5 per cent, was English money, and as the securities had to go Home that would not suit you, and you agreed to take the amount you wanted at 6 per cent. You said that you could afford to take it at 6 per cent., as there was no valuation or procuration fee to be charged. For the defence, F. Busch said his agreement with plaintiff was to conduct the case Gibbs v Busch for a guinea, and he was disappointed because plaintiff allowed it to be adjourned, saying that it would • make extra costs on Gibbs. With regard to the charges connected with the loan, seeing ah advertisement offering, money at 5 per cent, he asked plaintiff about it, saying he wanted £1000 for ono of his sons. He asked what a mortgage deed would cost, but gave no instructions. Bkd since offered defendant the guinea for the case and 6s 8d for hia advice,, which he had paid into Court. To Mr Spackman—Your letters were sent to Rangiora when I was at Southbridge. Had not taken up any loan, but arranged the matter in another way. The Resident 24agistrate drew attention to section 139 of the Resident Magistrates Act, in which it was provided that the bill of costs for the: £2 2s for the case in Court should have been rendered within seven days. Mr Spackman admitted the account had hot besu 99 rendered. The Clerk of the Court; said the defendant bad paid <£1 7s 86V into Court. The Resident said it not objected that the other items were-ex-cessive, and deducting the amount paid in, judgment was for £3 7s B<L