BROTHERS AT VARIANCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 December 1929, Page 11

BROTHERS AT VARIANCE

SEQUEL TO LITIGATION. (Special to "Star.”) AUCKLAND, December 6. In connection with the Johnstone brothers dispute, Mr Holmden said that his client, Campbell Johnstone, was a member of the Auckland Harbour Board, Chairman of the Raglan County Council, and a member of the Waikato Hospital Board. Mr Hoble (counsel for defendant Hallyburton Johnstone) “and a man who pleads the Statute of Limitations. Mr Holmden added that it would be necessary for him to refer to some early history in order to show the mental attitude of Hallyburton Johnstone. The parties prior to 1917, together with another brother Lindsay, who was drowned in 1917, were partners in a farm at Whatawhata, and another at Ngatea, and they were also mixed up in extensive cattle dealing transactions. After Lindsay’s death, differences arose between Hallyburton Johnstone and the deceased’s brothers widow. The result was litigation, and the case was heard before the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Cooper. It lasted three or four days, and then a settle-

ment was effected. However, said counsel, trouble afterwards commenced and in a letter written by Hallyburton Johnstone said: —“What did I find? I’ve been swindled out of £lO,OOO. Your lawyer with Ostler’s help swindled me out of £10,000! “Ostler,” said Mr Holmden, is the present Mr Justice Ostler. The letter will give your Worship an idea of what this man writes. Mr Hunt: I am not going to bother about all this past history. No man should writes letters like that or write what defendant has written on envelopes of letters dispatched to his hrnUiar

orouier. Mr Hunt then asked Mr Noble what he had to say about it. “My client has committed no offence at all,” said Mr Noble. “There can be no offence unless a breach of the peace is committed. Mr Hunt: Your man might continue sending such letters and the other man might meet him in the’ street to strike him. Mr Noble: Well, if that occurred it would be Campbell Johnston who would have to be bound over. “I could bind the two of them over.” said the Magistrate. Mr Noble then quoted a case in support of his submission that no offence had been committed and that his client could not be bound over. “His brother has got his remedy. Let him sue my client for libel if what he said is not true?” Mr Holmden: We cannot sue for libel. Mr Hunt: Will your client undertake to stop writing such letters in future? Mr Noble: Yes, I have advised him it is not wise to continue. Mr Hunt then bound defendant over in the sum of £lO that no future annoyance would be caused by letters addressed to his brother.