SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10691, 15 May 1906, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

YESTERDAY. IN BANCO. DUNLOP v LYSNAR. (Bofore His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) The hearing of the appeal against the Magistrate's decision in the ca6e of Lysnar v Dunlpp, was concluded yesterday afternoon. Continuing his address on behalf of respondent Dunlop, Mr Rees said : Nothing was heard of any claim, nor did Mr Lysnar allege any claim against Mis Dunlop until Messrs* Martin and Devore wrote to Mr Lysnar in 1903, claiming equity of redemption in connection with other property in Gisborne. Until that letter no claim was ever mentioned. Mr Rees was proceeding to make further reference to the Supreme Court case, when Mr Stock objected, pointing out that Mr Rees was introducing new matter, outside the present case. Mr Reos, continuing, asked that the Statute of Limitations be admitted in the case. Respondent's argument was that Mr Dunlop was his wife's agent, but it was admitted that Mrs Dunlop had disclaimed any liability beyond the £200 guarantee. Mr Rees submitted, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that a P.N. for £20 from Mr Price, a tenant of Mrs Dunlop's, should have been credited. Mr Rees proposed' to call Mr Price. Mr Stock: I shall object to that. In reply to his Honor, Mr Rees said Mrs Dunlop only acknowledged that she employed Mr Lysnar in August, 1898. Ho proposed to call Mi* Price to show that the promissory note was obtained by Mr Lysnar. ; Mr Stock objected to further evidence being called. Price was in Gisborne, and could have been called at the pre- . vious hearing. In reply to his Honor, Mr Rees said he would have called Mr Price before, but Mr Dunlop understood the amount owing by him was paid. Mr Stock said there wag Mr Lysnar's evidence that the note was dishonored. He submitted that it would not be right for Mr Price to be called now. His Honor asked if it did not 6eem right that if Mr Dunlop thought at the hearing that the promissory note had been taken as cash, and Mr Lysnar said it lwid been dishonored, tliat evidence should be called on the point. Mr Stock contended that in the face of Mr Dunlon's- letter to Mr Stock it Ava,s not reasonable for appellant to expect to bring Mr Price as evidence. It was disputed that Mr Lysnar received money from Mr Price to go to the credit of Mr or Mrs Dunlop. His Honor, thought it would be better to let. the case stand without further evidence. \ Mr Stock contended that the Statute of Limitations could' not be admitted in the present case. The Magistrate had refused to exercise his discretion in regard to the statute, and as the case was not for re-hearing, this Court could hardly reverse the Magistrate's decision not to ad. mit the Statute of Limitations. Mr Stock proceeded to go through the items of the bill, to show that the work charged for wag done to the benefit of Mrs Dunlop. His Honor pointed out that Mrs Dunlop contended tliat Mr Dunlop was not authorised by her to act a» her agent. Mr Stock' held that his Honor would have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that throughout Mr Dunlop was acting as his wife's agent in the matter. Mr Lysnar's clerk had been in error for a time in not opening a separate account for Mrs Dunlop, and had put in her husband's account several items tliat should have been credited to her. His Honor asked if Mr Lysnar's diary were not shown to the Magistrate? Mr Stock replied that he understood Mr Lysnar to say 60. Mr* Rees said he understood Mr Lysnar refused to produce his diary to the Court, on tlie ground that there avus another suit pending. Replying to his Honor, Mr Barton, S.M.. stated that at the hearing of the case before him, Mr Lysnar had produced the diary, saying he had no objection to Mr Barton seeing it, but he objected to the other side going through it, seeing tlwt there was another action m the Supreme Court pending. After hearing further argument, his Honor reserved- judgment.