MONCKTON V. BROWN.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1295, 25 November 1911, Page 13

MONCKTON V. BROWN.

Sir, —My attention bns boon dircctcd io some statements mndo by Mr. Byron Brown at an election meeting at Levin (us reported in the "llorowhcnmi C'hron-

icio"), with reference to tho Blander notion Monckton v. Browu. Ab I anted for Mr. Monckton in every step of tlio legal tirocccdings, 1 giro an unqualified denial to Mr. Brown's statomont that a writ of s-n.lo was issued against his property. Tho fact is t.hat judgment was pronounced against Mr. Brown oo August HO, but the formal entry of tho judgment was postponed at his solicitors request, in order to save Mr. Brown tho 6mall additional espenso which that step would involve. It was assumed by both Mr. Brown's tolicitor and myself that it would be quite unnecessary to formally enter judgment, hut in this we wero mistaken. I certainly understood that Mr. Brown treated tho judgment against him as being, to him, a comparatively trifling matter. After the amount of oosts payable by Mr. Brown (.£159 9s. 4d.) was ascertained I made application ia the usual course of business in such matters, through Mr. Brown's solicitor, for a cheque. Tho comniunicatious i made to mo in response rendered it evidently necessary to persuade Mr. Brown that_ the judgmont against him involved a liability on his part to pay.

Why a. "sportsman" should feel aggrieved because, havrag "called tho tune," he should bd asked to "pay tho piper" is not easy to understand. But the fact remains that I found it necessary to resort to that "gentle pressure" which is proverbially regarded (when applied by a lawyer) as the guide to reasonableness. Judgmont was not entered until September 22. Mr. Brown asked for time to pay part of the judgment, and his solicitor and I discussed a modus vivendi, and he made a proposal which I submitted to Mr. Monckton by letter, viz., that Mr. Brown should pay tho taxed costs and •£2aO on account of the damages awarded by the jury, and Mr. Brown should have till December 1 (the date which Mr. Brown suggested as suiting his own convenience) to pay tho balance. . In response to my letter, Mr. Monckton (on September 2G) telegraphed to me as follows:—

"All right, let Brown have the concession mentioned in your letter.— Monckton." The matter was adjusted accordingly. Now where is .Mr. Brown's grievance? Where ho sowed malice and slander, he reaped mercy. Ho should never have defended the action in Uio way be did. Had ho expressed regret and withdrawn his aspersions on Mr. Monckton, instead of inviting an action and trying to "bluff" his slanders through before a jury, he would nave had to pay a very much smaller cheque than he has already paid. The public will be ablo to judge whether Mr. Brown has or has not had knightly treatment. The jury decided tho other question, and it need'not be further discussed. I am sure that no one who knows Mr. Monckton will bo surprised at his giving Ins opponent every sporting chance. I may add here that the chequo paid by Mr. Brown to his solicitors doubtless included their costs. Tho cheque which I received on behalf of Mr. Monckton on September 28 was for .£409 9s. iA., not .£5Ol Bs. 3d., as Mr. Brown would lead his hearers to suppose. The expenses of tbo action wevo naturally heavy, is Mr. Monckton had to pay substantial costs of preparing for trial, two counsel at the hearing, and many witnesses, also jury and Court fees, and it is well known that the costs allowed by the Court scale never indemnify a successful litigant. In this case they fell far short of doing so. Mr. Brown, 1 am informed, has complained that Mr. Monckton threatened to sell up his (Mr. Brown's) motor-car. The statement (if mado by Mr. Brown) is entirely incorrect. Tlio only rdtrence to Mr. Brown's motor-car made in the matter was made bv Mr. Brown himself, in what was practically a defiant invitation to Mr. MoncktoTi to sell it up-an invitation which, needless to Bay, was not accepted. To have taken away Mr. Byron Brown's motor-car just before tho elections would have been as poor a joko as removing his garments while ho.was bathing!-. Mr." Brown'may ' rest assured that, except of his own gocd grace and courtesy, ho places the uso of his car at Mr Monckton's disposal on December 7, Mr Brown will bo in undisputed possession of it on that day.—l am, etc., C. B. MOEISON. Wellington, November 21.