MONEY-LENDER V. SOLICITORS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 335, 23 October 1908, Page 8

MONEY-LENDER V. SOLICITORS.

A CHRISTCHURCH CASE. SOME PECULIAR FEATURES. (BI IELEGBAI'n—ritESS ASSOCIATION.) Chrlstchurch, October 22. A case possessing some most peculiar features was heard at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Ruston Curlett, money-lender, sued Dougall and Upham, solicitors, to recover £30 alleged to be duo for services rendered under contract in connection with the case, W. G. Brown v. F. H. Bruges, in tho early part of this year. Mr. Russell appeared for tho defendants. Tho caso was heard by Mr. V. G. Day, S.M. Elizabeth Aim Curlett, ivifo of the plaintiff, said that she went to- Mr. Dougall's office as a result of a message from him either at tho end of last year or tho beginning of this. Dougall stated that he bad a good case against Bruges regarding money lost from Brown's Estate, but the Browns would not go further. He offered to go on with the caso if she guaranteed £25 costs. She did so, desiring to bring Bruges to justice. A littlo later she again went to Dougall's office, and he told her he could not go on unless the guarantee were increased to £50, because he thought Bruges was going to fight the case.; She consented to the increase. At both interviews the plaintiff asked how he was to be paid for his services, and Dougall said that Bruges might pay money to keep the action out of Court, and in that case she would not have to pay the costs, but he would pay Curlett for his services. Dougall said that he expected to get large cost-s out of the case. Dougall at both interviews said that he had a good case,- and was sure to get Bruges committed for trial. Mr. Russell, to witness: You wanted to get Bruges put in gaol? Witness: I wanted to bring him to justice, because so many slurs had been cast on the name of Curlett through the Bruges's affairs. Witness then produced a number of typewritten papers which she said she had received from Dougall's office with other documents to show that ho had a good caso. Mr. Russell objected to the documents being put in. He said that one was a copy of an affidavit, sworn before the Official Assignee, that anyono could have obtained. The witness said the papers came from.Dougall's office. He-said that they did not. There was no proof that they .came from-the. office. ' The affidavit was sworn in 1907, .and the ! present action was in regard to matters that ■ occurred in 1908.

Mr. Day said he would allow the papers to go in in tho meantime for what they were worth. . . The witness, continuing, said that she heard Dougall agree to pay Curlett for his services if Bruges wore convicted. She did not want money, but only to bring Bruges to justice. Mr. ltussell: You wanted revenge, you say?' " ; '. ' Witness: I said I wanted-to'bring him to justice. Later, she. continued, she heard R. Brown telling : Curlett that Dougall's costs had amounted to £100. She knew that £400 was paid altogether, when the' case was settled. To Mr. Russell: She wanted'to put Bruges into gaol, and was prepared to lose £50 to do so. She objected to the statement that she sought revenge. ; Dougall told lier that he thought 1 he could prove the case, against Bruges, because it was one in ■. Goodman was not mixed up. Bruges had injured her in many ways. Dougall advised her in several of her own cases not to take them to the Magistrate's Court, because she would not get justice from Mr. Bishop. Mr. Russell: Oh; rubbish. Mr. Russell: Do you know that the general opinion is that the whole of your money came from Bruges's office, and his creditors? Why then did you want to hound him down? Witness: I refute the statement that my money came from Bruges absolutely. I object to the term "hound down." Mr. Russell: The claim is for services rendered. Do. you suggest that Curlett rendered services to Dougall?

Witness: Yes, certainly. Ruston Curletfc said that Dougall told him ho had paid £40 for information from an accountant, on vrliich the case against Bruges was based. Ho told him that the Browns would not go on with the case. They did riot want to lose any more money. He (Curlett) offered to guarantee the costs, but Dougall told h™ tl] at it would not look well, and suggested that Mrs. Curlett should guarantee the money. Mr. Day: This is immaterial. The witness went on to say that Dougall told him that he would., have to advise the Browns to accept the money if Bruges paid it. He said he would pay for plaintiff's services because he was going to charge good costs. He would not work for nothing. Plaintiff went to Mount Somers to see the Browns. They were averse to going on, but he assured them that it would cost them nothing, • and it was their duty to the State to continue the' action. He'told them of Mrs. Curlett's' guaran Lee. Later he again went to Mount Somers. After that William Brown laid the information, but a day or so before the date of hearing Bruges offered £300 to Dougall for the Browns to discontinue; Dougall told him that he would not withdraw the case unless £100 were paid to him for costs. Later Dougall said that he.had received a cheque for £400, of which £100 was costs, and had cashed it. He refused then to pay plaintiff for any services. Plaintiff had also to pay £5 for an accountant to do some work, in connection. with the .-ase. This closed the caso for the plaintiff. • Mr. Day asked if the case was not based on a contract that came under the heading of being against public policy. The evidence of Mr. Curlett, he said,'put him out of Court. ■ . Mr. Russell said that th.w.had boun 110 contract, and even if there had, for whom were the services rendered? . For Curlett. He wanted to put . Bruges in gaol, and .it was in. his own interest that, he urged the Browns to. go on with the case. It was easy to see why the case had been brought. Curlett had heard : that Dougall had mado £100 out of the case, but out of' that amount paid for costs £40 was .paid' in disbursements. He thought there was plunder about, and wanted to have a finger in it. If there was a contract it was an illegal contract. Brown was perfectly satisfied 0 with the amount of costs. If the costs were taxed in the Supreme Court the amount would be found to be larger.- - Mr. Day said that the alleged contract was against public policy, and in the old days the proof of its existence would have led to criminal proceedings. There was no contract proved, and judgment would be for the defendants with costs. Regarding the above case, Dougall and Upham, the defendants, write as follows to the evening papers:—" With reference to the case of Curlett v. Dougall and Upham, heard this morning, owing to the case being decided on the plaintiffs' evidence, we had no opportunity of refuting tile statements mado by him and his wife. We trust you will allow us to say that the general allegation that wo in any way instigated or assisted in working up a prosecution against Mr. Bruges, or made any agreement to pay Mr. Curlett, is entirely untrue. Wo acted as solicitors for Brown's Estate, which we had taken over after Mr. Bruges's bankruptcy. Whilst the estate was in Mr. Bruge's office large sums of .money had been obtained from Mr. Curlett by way of loan, upon which the beneficiaries were paying him ten per cent., while the estate was only returning 5 per cent. 11l consequence of our advice to the Browns, Mr. Curlett was paid off. He, however, had acquired a very intimate knowledge of tho whole of tho dealings with tho cstato. Ho urged the Browns to prosecute Mr. Bruges, and they agreed to do so. solely on the understanding that Mr. Curlett would bear all tho expenses. Our instructions wero received from Mr. W. 13. Brown, and at tho same timo Mr. Curlett undertook to pay the charges. Our whole connection with tho matter was merely that of solicitors. Mr. Brown was in Court to give evidence of these facts. The beneficiaries of and in Brown's Estato have expressed themselves as being perfectly satisfied with the part wo played in the matter, and they are prepared to testify to tho facts as stated by us.' ,v