LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 558, 13 July 1909, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL.

SOLICITORS AND CISBORNE MAORIS.

', A QUESTION OF RETAINER. Sittings of the' Appeal Court wore resumed yesterday, the Benoh , comprising their Honours Mr. Justice Williams (actingChief Justice), Mr. Justice Dcnniston, and Mt. Justice Cnqnnnn. In the case of Williom Douglas Lysnar, eolioitor, of Gisborno, v. Ahenata Tβ Maire mid Toko Rihara, Mt. L. T. Burnard appeared for the appellant, and Mr. 1. W. Hialop for the respondents. , . This was' an appeal against a decision ot Mr. Justice Edwards, giycn at Gisbonie a few months ago. -The respondent,' To Mairo, wae the owner of an interest in the Nukutauria and Moutoro No. 1 Blocks of Native fond; in the Gisborno district, part of the land subject to the East Coast Native Lands Trust. The respondent, Rihara, was administrator and legatee, of tho estate ofTamihana "Waitatakina, deceased, whp .had been also tho owner of an interest m these blocks. Tho respondents sued tho appellant, claiming an injunction 'to restrain him,from appearing before the Validation Court, and acting as their solicitor in connection with those blocks of land. In their statement 'of claim, the plaintiffs alleged that, by a decree of , the Validation Court, in 1895, To Maire and I tho deceased Native became entitled to receive certain moneys'from the sale of part of these blocks; that in 1895 the. defendant' filed in the Validation Court an appearance on 'their behalf without any authority from them; that the plaintiffs, in February, 1908, finding that some moneys were due tp them from the sale of these lands, caused a notice of motion to bo filed in tie Validation Court asking for an order directing that the moneys should be paid to them: that the defendant, without any authority from them, appeared-.befor© tho Validation Court and informed the.Court that he was sohortor for tho plaintiffs and claimed to bo recognised as their eolioitor, because ho had file* an appearance for them in 1880, .«****.?£* thereupon nfusod to entortam the appheation. The plaintiffe claimed the sum,of £99, in addition to an injunction. ■ Defendant had alleged that ho had been expressly retained by the two Natives to appear for" them before the Validation Court, and that he had over since acted for them, with their knowledge and consent; that costs were still owing to him by the , plaintiffs in respect to their retainer; that / the defendant had not been notified by the plaintiffs of their 'desire to withdraw the retainer .except so far A as the motion in the Validation Court was notice; that tho plaintiffs had acquiesoed in the defendants acts, and were therefore estopped from makinc tho present claim. The defendant also pleaded tho Statute of Limitations. He alleged, , 'further, -that his ,appearance in ' the Validation Court in February, 1908, was ' not as solicitor for the.plaintiffs, but on his own behalf, and for the purpose of protecting his costs. Defendant also alleged that tho Validation Court had exclusive jurisdiction, and'that, seeing that that Court had i found tlat the defendant, was retained by tile plaintiffs, that decision was,'conolusivo, and could.not bo reviewed by the Supreme Court. ,Mr. Justice Edwards found that the ' defendant (now appellant; had not been retained by the two plaintiffs, and that he had appeared before the Validation Court act as solicitor for them. He granted an injunction to restrain the defendant from acting as the plaintiff's solicitor, and awarded the plaintiffs £25 damages, with costs amounting to £54 17s. od. Defendant' appealed from this decision. Mr Burnard said that, in consequence of the attitude taken up by the plaintffis, 'the case before the Validation Court''was dismissed unheard.. Tho defendant (appellant) had appeared at that sitting in answer to a notice from the Judge of the Court, arid to insist upon and assort^a/claim'of his 'own, to support his 'own lien for costs against the Natives. He was represented by counsel, and did not''himself tako part in the proceedings. His counsel informed •the Court that, as he (appellant) had gone out of practice, he ,had no objection to any other solicitor "superßeding " him, provided that his costa<.were,,protected;iand the.namo of another solicitor was properly substituted on tho record. Ftoui 1895 to 1908, the appellant, had been acting on behalf of a great body, of Natives, and ho appeared before the .Validation-.Court, to ask that no'order should be made whjch l would not protect his costs. • > j •Argument for the appellant' having con. eluded,' the • Court adjourned until this morning. ' v '