NO DAMAGES

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25052, 16 November 1944, Page 6

NO DAMAGES

WOMAN'S CLAIM FAILS VERDICT FOR LAWYER The hearing of the claim of Ethel May Devenish Meares, florist, of Tauranga who conducted her own case, for £SOOO damages against H. 0., Cooney, solicitor, of Tauranga (Mr Henry), was concluded before Mr Justice Callan and a jury yesterday. The plaintiff's claim was based on the allegation that the defendant had failed to carry out her instructions when her husband took divorce proceedings against her seven years ago and so had allowed her to become respondent instead of petitioner and to be accused of deserting her husband. The defence denied that the plaintiff had instructed tho defendant that the divorce was to occur only on her petition, and said that tliu plaintiff knew and approved of all lie had done. After an absence of two hours and fifty minutes the jury brought in a unanimous verdict for the defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly. . Plaintiff's Instructions Continuing his evidence yesterday, H. O. Cooney suid he had received about £5 altogether for the divorce proceedings. Plaintiff: Did i not give you strict written instructions to defend the case? Witness: You gave me a letter of instructions, but tho letter resulted in a visit to you at which you gave me instructions to get as much money as I could out of Meares. You gave me emphatic instructions to on no account do anything to take you away from your work. His Honor said that the whole crux of the case was what really happened between plaintiff and defendant when he went to see her on the farm before the divorce proceedings. S. L. Faterson. stipendiary magistrate. of Hamilton, recalled hearing a maintenance case of Devenish Meares at Tauranga in 1930. Witness read his notes of the evidence then given by the plaintiff, who said her husband was. in financial difficulties and started selling off the herd. She went to her place at Gate Pa because there seemed nothing else to do. Divorce Proceedings The solicitor who acted for the plaintiff's husband in his divorce proceedings, J. M. Gordon, of Palmerston North, said he had arranged with plaintiff's solicitor, Mr Cooper, for the petition to, proceed on the ground of mutual separation. At tho hearing the evidence showed clearly that the wife had deserted. The Judge hearing the case was very emphatic that it was a case of desertion, and he refused Mrs Meares' solicitor leave to file an answer. Mr Henry said there was a very sharp conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant as to what occurred when instructions were given to the defendant regarding tho divorce proceedings. It was for her to satisfy the jury that her version was correct. It was in no way the fault of the defendant that the divorce was not carried through in the form intended. It was without doubt that the plaintiff left her husband, and she said she did so because he was in financial difficulties. In her final address the plaintiff said she had no objection to tho divorce going through; her objection was to the manner in which it had been put through. When she left her husband she did tho only thing she could do, as tlie place had been sold over her head. For seven years she had been trying to got justice, and. had consulted 40 lawyers, one of whom kept her papers for two years. Plaintiff said she had suffered' a "diabolical injustice" for seven and detailed more than a score of organisations to whom she had appealed repeatedly. K

His Honor's Comment His Honor drew attention to the importance of the case, not only because of the large sum of money claimed, but because a professional man's good name was at stake. On the subject of.compensation, if the plaintiff was entitled to any, the jury was limited to the fair compensation she should have* for having been respondent instead of petitioner in tho divorce proceedings and for it being represented that she_ deserted her husband. She was entitled to nothing else. * His Honor said he could not see anything wrong cither in the of Cooney or the other solicitors, Keesing or Cooper, if the plaintiff had given the instructions that Cooney said she gave. He could not see that any of the lawyers in the divorce proceedings could have done differently. The main question remained —who was telling the truth about what was said at the farm, the plaintiff or the defendant? • After the jurv returned its verdict His Honor allowed defendant costs on the lower scale, witnesses' expenses and disbursements, orders for discovery and inspection £l6 16s, and certified for £l2 12s for each of two extra days. CHINESE ACQUITTED ALLEGED THEFT OF MONEY (0.c.) GISBORNE, Wednesday A Chinese fruiterer's assistant, Albert Yee, was acquitted by a jury on a charge of theft, or alternatively receiving £4lO and 12. American dollars, the property of a compatriot, Ng Cheim Yuen. The trial was held before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. Evidence showed that Yuen left his wallet in the premises of Charles Meng Yee. fruiterer and greengrocer, where accused was employed. Later the wallet, which had contained seven £SO notes, eight £5 notes, 20 £1 notes, one ten dollar and two one dollar notes, was returned to Yuen through Charles Meng Yee to whom the loss had previously been reported. Tho wallet was in an envelope addressed to C. M. Yee in handwriting which, the Crown alleged, corresponded closely with specimens of accused's handwriting. Tho wallet contained on its return only six £SO notes, the balance of the money having gone._ Accused said he picked up tho envelope at the back of the shop. Accused was given a good character by his employer, who stated that accused had American dollars in his possession before the loss of Yuen's wallet. _ The crux of the case, said His Honor to the jury, lay in the question whether the dollars found on Yee were those which Yuen claimed to have lost. Without conviction as to -"the identity of the dollars the case must fail. Accused was found not guilty.