WHICH COUNSEL? ,

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 10, 12 July 1909, Page 8

WHICH COUNSEL? ,

THE RIGHT TO APPEAR. COURT OF APPEAL CASE. Complications arising out of the appearance of two solicitors in the Validation Court at Gisborne in February last were reviewed by their Honours the Acting- Chief Justice and Justices Denniston and Chapman, in the Court of Appeal, to-tlay. The appellant in question was William Douglas Lysnar, represented by Mr. Burnard, of Gisborne, and the respondents, Ahenata te Maire and Toko Eihara, for whom Mr. Hislop appeared. The story of the case, as gathered from counsel's address to the Bench and the statements of claim and defence, was this : The appellant, W. D. Lysnar, a prominent citizen of Gisborne, for many years acted as solicitor for the respondents, among other natives. His name was on the records of the Validation Court as the solicitor retained by the respondents. In February a sitting of the Validation Court was held in Gisborue. The respondents appeared in order to claim certain moneys alleged to be due to them. Their counsel was Mr. Finn, a solicitor, of Gisborne. The appellant also appeared, according to the judgment of the court, claiming to represent the respondents, by whom he had been previously retained. According to the contention oi his counsel, the appearance of the appellant was simply in support >of his lien. It was a misunderstanding On the part of the presiding Judge that led to the application of the respondents being dismissed on the ground that the name of the appellant was still on the record as solicitor retained by the respondents, and that consequently Mr. Finn's appearance was not regular. The respondents then brought an action against Mr. Lysnar, before Mr. Justice Edwards, at Gisborne, for £99 damages and an injunction restraining the appellant from appearing at certain proceedings of the Validation Court. It was contended then that he had not authority to appear for the natives in question, that he had informed the Validation Court he was solicitor for them on the ground that he had filed an appearance for them in 1895. His 'Honour found that there had been a wrongful act on the part of the defendant Lysnar, that he was not retained by the plaintiffs — Te Maire and another — and that he had appeared before the Validation Court purporting to act as solicitor for them. Damages, £25, and the required injunction were granted against the defendant. From ! this decision he now appealed. The main contention for the appeal, as urged by Mr. Burnatd, was that the appellant appeared jin his own behalf, I and did not purport to appear for the respondents. He had no objection to any other solicitor representing the respondents, provided his own name was removed from the record in a proper manner, and his interests as a solicitor protected. There was an amount of £296 16s lid still due to him as costs in the matter. (Left sittinz.?