MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, 7 August 1916, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CLAIM FOR 6s Bd. Mr J. S. Evans, S.M., has- given, judgment in the case Glasgow, Hayes, and Rout v. A. McK-ee. This, the statement of claim set out, was a, claim for 6s 8d "for professional advice given to the defendant, full particulars of which have been given." The judgment states: —The facts are . that the defendant was chairman of directors of the ■Tasmani Fruit Lands Ltd., and- Mr Glasgow solicitor for the company. The defendant was the vendor of certain lands to the company, and l the deed of agreement contained- certain clauses in,- relation to for the benefit of the company in; regard to 'boundary fences between lands sold and lands still held by the company. The company sold certain lands to a Mr Herous, one boundary of which adjoined land hel,d by the defendant personally. Mr Glasgow held the agreement the defendant and the company.' Defendant states that Mr Glasgow lieid- the aerreement for both parties, and- Mr Glasgow denies this. A question has arisen with regard' to fensing between Mr Hercus and the defendant, and the defendant wished to see the agreement in order to ascertain if the benefit of the fencing clause extended to him. Defendant called at Mr Glasgow's office. Mr Glasgow produced the agreement and defendant perused it. Mr Glasgow admits that the defendant did not say dn exact terms "I want your advice," but they discussed the clause, and Mr Glasgow s'ayis he advised the defendant- as to tlje effect of it on -behalf of the company as between the defendant, and the company. He did not advise defendant as to his right ill- regard to the question) between defendant and Mr Hercus. Mr Glasgow, knowing that the defendant was chairman of directors of the company, assumed that he was advisincr on behalf of the company. He charged- the advice to the company. There is no suggestion l that tho defendant represented he was seeking advice on behalf of the company. The chsrsre wns repudiated by -the company, and Mr Glasgow debited the advice to defendant- and credited the company with 6s Bd. He billed the defendant, who ultimately refused to pay on the grounds that he had not consulted Mr Glasgow. . . . The defendant wrote repudiating liability, his contention beimr that foe .not seek advice on behalf of the companv- nor on- his own) behalf as between himself and the company, because Mr Glasgow was the solicitor for the company. and- he would not seek his advice as "between himself and the company. ... I must therefore find that Mr Glasgow intended to advise the company, and not the defendant personally. . . Defendant did not represent himself as agent. Mr Glasgow treated him as such, and is bound by that. Judgment was given for the defendant. The case did not carrv costs.

Mr Hayes appeared for "plaintiff .and Mr Moore for defendant.