CLAM AGAINST A SOLICITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2883, 23 June 1909, Page 14

CLAM AGAINST A SOLICITOR.

ADJOURNED FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE. 1 A case involving' the liability of_^a solicitor for money received in connection with a bond warrant for an octave of whisky •w\ts heard before Mr H. Y. Widdowsoii, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court on the 15th. The parties to the case ware Donald . Gordon' Gunn (plaintiff), a runhclder, who was at one time a licensed victualler at Chatto Creak, and Daniel Douglas Macdonald, a well-known Dunedin solicitor. The plaintiff claimed _ the sum. of £13, an amount of money . l-ebeived by defendant from plaintiff on or about December 15, 1906, on the alleged understanding- fcha.t defendant was to pay duty and clear from bond one octave of whisky, the property of plaintiff, and forward- it to plaintiff. The statement of claim set out that defendant had not cleared the said whisky or paid duty thereon, and that defendant bad •promised to pay the sand, money to plaintiff, but had failed to do so.— Mr R. Gilkisou appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Macdonald' (who explained that counsel engaged to appear was employed in another court) appeared for himself. Donald G-unn stated' that he ordered from the traveller of Callendar and Co. in 1906 six cases and an octave of whisky. In the meantime lie had purchased a run and leased the hotel. He met Mr Callendar in Dunedin, and asked him if he would take back the octave of whisky if tho bond warrant were returned. To this Mr Callendar agreed, but the firm of Callend'a.r and Co. ceased business, and witness received a summons through Mr D. D. Macdonald for £18 15s 9d. Mrs Gunn sent a cheque for the amount, which waa in full pavreent of the whisky, but did not include -duty. Witness afterwards called | on Mr Maodonald, and, as a result of the conference, witness, undertook to give him ] £13 to clear the octave of whisky, and forward the warrant to him. The whisky haj not been cleared by defendant as arranged, nor had the bond warrant been forwarded. He therefore asked that the money paid should be refunded. A duplicate bond warra-nt had been received soxne time afterwards for the whisky. Mr Maodonald: I admit that" I received ihe £13, and the other side know what was done with it. They brought the matter before the Law Society, and got no satisfaction there, and they have now brought it he-re. Mr Gilkison : Defendant made a declaration that he had the bond warrant, and \ thu* it had been lost, and a duplicate warrant was issued. Mr Macdonald : That is also admitted. I n^irfced Mr Gunn up to the time he •sai-I he would brina: the matter before the Law iSociety, and then I told him ro -do as he Dlca«?d. \t this sta^e Mr Gi'ki-cn. as solicitor .or plaintiff, volunteered to jri\e o\idencc. Ho stated that ho l<ad had tip ca*o in ha^l for 18 monrH. &nr\ had written nbout 15 tetter* to Mr MardonaU about it. but no satisfaction vas obtained. ! Mr Macdorald: Ts it not a fact I bat j my clerk, in oomnany wifh Mr J. liar- J donaM. oom.TM*e : on arr?nt and fo.rm«rlv i traveller for CMbudar and Co.. called nf your office, and a='-"d whether voii would accept paymont of ths amount, less £3 3s costs. I Mr Gillfison : I have no recollection of such an offor beinsr niflila. Mr MWonaJd r Mr Gunn was never mv client. Mr .Tohn MaodoraJd wa-s mv client. T rw?ived the ch-eque. and paid it to Mr J. Macdonald, minus £3 3s costs. Hb Worship: If J. MacdonaH waa defendant's client, Mr Gilkison. and. he r-a-cei«d the _nsoney, 13 he not th« man to i go- fei? 172^.3t7 you wcfre rjreparred to accept a declaration from defendant on fche matter, ana are you not now bound by it. Mr Gilkison said the d-scla.ra-tion had no roferonw to the £13, in resrard to some iierns of which th«re was a dispute. Defendant, in th-3 witness box, statc-d that as a iv^nlt of a sumirons iisi^d against plaintiff, the 1.-iHor canio to hU

3 office in company with Mr J. Macdonald. » They had a conversation with. witness, and 3 made up the amount to be paid to Maca kerras and Hazlett. . They also arranged that tlie monsy should be paid to J. Macdona Ld, who was to forward 4 the warrant c to plaintiff. His clerk had gone with Mr 3 J. Macdonald to ''Mr Gilkison's office to t arrange a. settlement on behalf of Mr J. i Macdonald, and they hadi also gone to ) Messrs Mackerras and Hazlett to get delir very of the whisky, but the firm would not 3 deliver on the duplicate- warrant, i Alexander G. Christopher, clerk to the ' defendant, stated that he went to the \ office of Mr Gilkison and asked him what he ! would take- from. Mr John Macdonald, • traveller,, in settlement of the account. > I Mr Gilkison said he wanted the whole £13. > Mr Hazlett said he would not hand over [ the whisky without the original bond *«ar- . | rant. j To Mr Macdonald : Mr Gilkison said he . would not accept the amount less costs. I Mr Gilkison submitted that the amount , was paid to defendant, and presumably was paid by him into bis trust account. His word; that he -had paid the amount ; over to Mr John Macdonald \tas not suffi- ; dent. As a business man he should have had a receipt for the money, and 1 his books and pacers should show a record of the transaction. His Worship said the declaration inI fe-rentially supported diefendant's statement that the money was handed over to J. Macdonald. There was no doubt defendant, had received the money, and when called on to explain he might have done so. Defendant: I was willing- to help the other side tsd to the time they threatened to bring- the matter before the Law Society ; but after that I washed my hone's of it, aad refused to give them any information. His Worship (continuing said he [thought Mr Gilkison shouLd be given an oprsortunity to call further evidence. I Defendant: If our Worship thinks it t nee^ssairy that any additional evidence in | regaird to documents, or otherwise, is necessary, I shall be prepared to give it. , The position I have taken up is that I will not under the oircmmstanoes. erive information to the other side ; but "it is a different matter if the court requires it. I His "Worship: I think J. Macdonald should he called. | Mr Macdonald: I am willing- that he I should be called. ! j The ca*e was then adjourned, on the • , undprtst? ndinff that defendant would j tender the evidence of the witness referred r —