HUNTER LITIGATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 August 1933, Page 7

HUNTER LITIGATION

EXPENSES OF EXPERT WITNESS account disputed [pee press association.] WELLINGTON, August 11. Dr. H. L. H. Steele, in the Supreme Court, to-day, sued Cyril Paul Hunter and Thomas Percy Hunter for .£262 10s in payment of services rendered in collection w’ith the litigation in the Hunter will case. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ solicitor, Alexander Dunn, had employed him to assist in the prepara- , tion and conduct of their case, and had promised that ho would be paid for his services. No amount was then agreed upon, and it was not possible at that stage to estimate what would be the extent of the services, and in the absence of any specific arrangement. Dr. Steele contended that he was entitled to reasonable remuneration, and that fees charged by him, amounting to £262 10s were fair and reasonable charges for such services. The plaintiff claimed that he had on many occasions made a request, to Mr. Dunn for payment, but nothing had been paid. Opening the plaintiff’s case, Mr. Rothenberg said that the main question in issue in the Hunter will case was as to the testamentary capacity of the testator, and this had involved the consideration of various questions. The defence, counsel said, denied the employing of the plaintiff in the conduct of the case, but the defence admitted that he was called as a witness as to fact. When the judgment was given, the- Court had ordered that the costs of the parties as between solicitor aud client should be taxed and paid out of the residuary estate, and £65 10s was fixed by the Registrar for Dr. Steele’s fees in attending as a witness. That, amount had been paid into Court in : satisfaction of his claim.

In answer to Hs Honor, Mr. Cornish appearing for the defendants, agreed that the defence was that the contract as alleged was denied, but it was admitted that Dr. Steele was entitled to certain fees, and that they were covered by the terms of the judgment. Mr. Rothenberg said that he would prove the contract by the positive evidence of the plaintiff, and would call independent evidence to show that the amount claimed was reasonable and customary. The plaitniff, giving evidence, said that when the question of payment arose the first time, Mr. Dunn came to see him. Mr. Dunn said to charge for the interview and for all subsequent work that he did and the interview he had in connection with the case. After the case was over and he rendered his account, Mr. Dunn told him that he would be paid when he could raise the money. Mr. Dunn never at any time had questioned the account. The sums charged were the usual scalefees. The case is proceeding.