CLAIM FOR LAWYER’S COSTS

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 28 September 1933, Page 4

CLAIM FOR LAWYER’S COSTS

DISPUTE OVER PAYMENT.

HAWERA COURT JUDGMENT.

Before M? J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Hawera Court yesterday a claim was heard in which R. J. .O’Dea, solicitor, proceeded against Mrs M. E. Hayward, of Nolantown, for £29 ss, balance of costs in connection with proceedings taken by her daughter, Mrs Johnston, to secure a divorce. Mr L. A. ‘Taylor appeared for plaintiff and Mr D. G. (Smart for defendant. After hearing evidence, the magistrate dismissed the case on the ground that the alleged guarantee to pay was not in writing. In his evidence, plaintiff said that the daughter, now Mrs Bloor, instructed him in regard to maintenance proceedings in March, 193:2, and later in regard to divorce. Mrs Bloor told him the costs would be paid by Mr Johnston and later said her parents would pay the costs if Mr Johnston did not pay. In reply to Mr Taylor, plaintiff said that the defendant came 10 .see him, with her daughter, and after discussing the question at a subsequent meeting, plaintiff asked about the costs, saying that Mrs Johnston had remarried without informing him and he was placed in •an awkward position. Mrs Hayward said her daughter’s position was now worse than before and that she herself would pay the amount. Mrs Hayward, called to give evidence by Mr Taylor, said she had received letters from Mr O’Dea, but had sent the first one to her daughter, believing it- was for her. iShe acknowledged going to Mr O’Dea’s office with her daughter and knew of the divorce proceedings, but she never promised to pay the costs and would affirm that on her oath.

In reply to Mr :Smart, defendant again affirmed that she did not at any time promise to pay and contradicted Mr O’Dea’s evidence on the point. She said she had had some money in a post office account, but had none at the present time and in any case had no right to bind her husband to pay. She said she first realised there was a claim against her when she received letters from Mr O’Dea. She said, in reply to Mr Taylor, that she had not received monthly accounts from plaintiff.

Mr Smart said lie was in an unenviable position because of the flat contradiction of Mr O’Dea’s evidence, but defendant had impressed him with hei sincere attitude.

The magistrate, in giving judgment for defendant, said that he must admit the charge made by Mr O’Dca for the divorce proceedings was moderate. The question was whether Mrs Hayward could be made liable for the costs incurred by the daughter. The evidence showed that the daughter gave the instructions and the ledger entries were in her name and she actually made some payments. It was possible that Mrs Hayward had promised to see the amount paid. Even if this were so, it was only a verbal promise and should have been in writing. The claim must on that account fail. No costs were asked for by counsel.