SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 7924, 29 July 1886, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Wednesday, July 28. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) HAINES AND ANOTHER V. THOMAS AND ANOTHER. Mr Joynt resumed the examination of Mr Thomas, who deposed:—Had never been applied' to by Mr John Holmes for accounts of the trust. On Sept. 6, 1881, received a letter from Mr Holmes, warning him that an action for damages would be brought against witness and Mr Bluett unless some satisfactory arrangement could be made. Received a letter dated March 14, 1881, from Mrs Haines, informing witness that Mr Holmes was acting as her solicitor. The witness produced a number of documents, transfers, letters, &0., extending over several years, which were read and put in. In an interview with Mr Lewis, witness offered to give a cheque at once for any item in the accounts to which objection could fairly be takefa. No items were then objected to. In May, June, or July last year Mr Wilding assured witness that there was no exception taken to any items of his, but that Mr Bluett was to be forced to render satisfactory accounts. Cross-examined by Mr Wilding: At the conversations I produced all the documents I bad at hand. I never understood you to say that discontinuing the action against me would prejudice your action against the eestinque trust. I never offered £IOO if the action were discontinued. It was before the action was commenced. When you informed me that you intended to bring an action against me I was very angry, and told you I would rather sacrifice every penny I bad ever charged in connection with the estate at all than be charged with a breach of trust; that such a charge, whether rightly or wrongly made, must injure any solicitor in his practice, and that I would rather pay £IOO than be dragged into Court in a case as you proposed. What made me angry was that you would not charge me with any breach of trust; or specify which moneys I ought not to have charged, yet still threatened ■ to bring the action. It was not pointed out to me that I must have known of Bluett’s breaches. I am not aware that I was Bluett’s solicitor during the whole time. He might have had other advice. I found the money for Mr Palfrey. I received £9 in connection with the deed of gift in which I was appointed trustee. I did not prepare another deed. There was apparently no need to cancel the deed. I did not advise Mrs Haines that she could not sell without her husband’s consent. The cross-examination was very protracted. At the close of Mr Wilding’s crossexamination, Mr Austin proposed to crossexamine also, but Mr Wilding objected. His Honor ruled that Mr Austin could cross-examine. Witness (to Mr Austin): On May 11, 1878, Mr Bluett paid £3O costs. In an interview with Mr Lewis on May 30, 1885, the question of the payment of the £213 4s 3d was raised. Nothing had been said about it previously. (The witness detailed his transactions in this matter with Mr Bluett.) Charles Percy Cox: In 1878 was an estate and commission agent. Arranged with Thomas Holmes for the purchase of the land at Ashburton. Produced a press copy of the agreement. The purchase was completed. Knew only Holmes in the matter. The purchase money was paid and transfers sighed. This closed the case for the defendant Thomas. Mr Austin opened for the other defendants, and called the following witnesses : Frederick Jameson, examined by Mr Bussell; In 1878 was in partnership with Mr Bluett. Had charge of the books and kept the correspondence. A cheque for £213 4s 3d for balance of Haines’ account was charged in Mr Bluett’s private account Haines made no application, in witness’ knowledge, a Second time to claim the amount. Made out Haines* account on June 20, 1879. Wrote to Mrs Haines. Posted the letter in the ordinary course of business. Mr Wilding objected that Mrs Haines had not received the letter, and there was no evidence that the letter had been posted. His Honor, after referring to a number ef cases, admitted the evidence, subject to the point being subsequently argued. Witness read a press copy of the letter dated August 9, 1879, which enclosed an account to date. Received no complaint from Mrs Haines. Cross-examined : Mr Bluett attended to Haines' business. I merely made out the account. I can tell no more than appears in the books. It was not part of my duty to post letters. I did not generally post letters. The usual commission on loans was 21 per cent. The sharge for selling a small estate would be 5 per cent, if we could get it; for a larger estate than £SOO, 24 per cent. Mark Walter Somerville, clerk in the Bank of New Zealand, Christchurch Produced a cheque for £725, dated May 9, 1878, drawn by Mr Bluett, in favour of Mr Felton. It was paid on May 13 into the Union Bank, Ashburton. Produced a similar cheque for £175 in favour of Mr Ellen. This was’cashed over the counter. The cheque for £213 4s 3d, produced, was paid over the counter on August 20, 1878. George Jameson, merchant at Ashburton; Mrs Haines owed witness money in 1879. Had a lien over some grain, and witness thought ■ a guarantee from Bluett. The books bad been destroyed by fire since 1879. Wrote the paper produced. Looking at it, witness believed that Mr Haines owed bis. firm £IBB 7s 4d. The account was dated April 24, 1879. On another account, there was a payment in Jane, 1879, of £99 13s 3d, and in April, 1880, of £lsl lie Id, made by Mr Bluett on account of Mrs Haines. The account was made up to June 30. Mrs Haines bad never disputed the account. Produced a letter to Mr Bluett, written by himself, acknowledging the £lsl cheque, and stating that the firm had a lien over Mrs Haines’ wheat. Cross-examined: I was satisfied with Bluett’s guarantee for Mrs Haines’ ac-

count. I believe Bluetj: was solvent then. I knew he was acting for Mrs Haines, but not that he was her trustee. James Callendar, accountant in the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile : Produced account with Messrs Bluett and Co. on account of Mrs Haines. It was rendered to Mr O’Reilly on Feb. 24, 1881. The balance was £l2 11s 3d, which was- paid to Mr O’Reilly. The account showed a cash advance of .£230 to Mr Bluett. _ Cross-examined: The quantity of wheat is shown in the number of sacks averaging 3f to 4 bushels. There was a draft from England for .£3OO. Pending the final settlement as the result of the sale in London, there was a credit balance in favour of Mr Bluett, of £4 11s 7d. The quantity of wheat sold was 453 sacks, or about 1700 bushels. This was the case for the defendants. Bluett's executors. Mrs Haines, re-called by His Honor: I never received the account from Messrs Bluett and Co., dated August 9, 1879. Letters to me through the post have miscarried several times. Another Mrs Haines has received some of my letters. Cross-examined by Mr. Austin: Some I have got, and some I have never got. People have told me they have written letters I have not received. A very short time ago my son wrote several letters which I never received. The argument on questions of law was by consent postponed for a sitting in Banco, when judgment will be moved for by the plaintiff. The Court adjourned at a quarter to six till 10 30 a.m. to-morrow (Thursday).