CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITORS

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 1038, 10 June 1924, Page 10

CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITORS

FARMER'S SUIT IN SUPREME COURT. ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE. An interesting claim by a farmer against a firm of solicitors with reference to certain investments made on his behalf, alleging negligence, came before Mr Justice Salmond in the Supreme Court at Wellington on Thursday. The plaintiff was J. A. Chesham, for whom Mr H. It. Cooper appeared, while the defendants were Herbert E. Hart and Allan F. Hogg, solicitors, of Masterton, represented by Mr M. Myers, K.C. With him appeared Mr G. Swan. The plaintiff was formerly a wellknown farmer in the Wairarapa district, but is now residing near Palmerston North. In the year 1920 the defendants were carrying on business sis solicitors in co-partnership in Masterton and Carterton. In November and December of that year, said the statement of claim, they received on account of, and in trust for, the plaincertain sums, amounting in all to £17,396 10s. _ The defendants were authorised to invest nt their discretion on behalf of the plaintiff portion of this money on the security of first mortgages or mortgages o'f freehold lands. It was submitted that it was the duty of the defendants to obtain an independent valuation of any property proposed as security of an advance by a competent and experienced valuer, and not to advance any greater sum than an amount recommended by such valuer.

It was stated that, on December 14th, 1920, "in breach of their said duties, and contrary to the instructions of the plaintiff," thoy advanced the sum of £2450 to William Edward Sampson, farmer, of Carterton, for a period of five years. It was also suggested that prior to the making of such advance the defendants did not obtain a proper valuation and report on the property, which was not a freehold, but a renewable lease granted under the provisions of The Land Act, 1908, and The Land For Settlement Act, 1908. The plaintiff declared that he had never received any suni whatsoever on account of interest which fell due under the mortgage securing £24.'50, or after W. E. Sampson had obtained the property. As a result the plaintiff alleged that he had sustained a loss of £2258 13s Bd, which sum ho claimed, contending that this loss had been incurred through the alleged negligence of the defendants in making this advance. Interest was also claimed at the rate of £6 10s per centum per annum from January 24th, 1923, to date of judgment. FOR THE DEFENCE. The defendants submitted that any proposed investments had to be, and in fact, Were submitted to the plaintiff for consideration and approval. The latter had exercised his own discretion and judgment. All reasonable and proper steps had been taken by the defendants, with reference to tins investment, which was not made in breach of their duties or of the instructions of the plaintiff. The defendants, while denying that they were guilty of any negligence, said it was the duty of the plaintiff, if he intended endeavouring to make the defendants liable for his loss (if any) to minimise such less, and that the plaintiff sold the property at ' a timo when the maximum loss was inevitable. If the plaintiff had acted with reasonable prudence ha could and would have avoided this los or minimised it. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Juno 6. In the case of J. A. Chesham against Hart and Hogg, Mr Justice Salmond gave oral judgment for the defendants, remarking that ho was unable to rely on the evidence of the plaintiff, who had a bad memory. The defendants could not be held legally liable.