CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITOR.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume L, Issue 16607, 10 December 1924, Page 9

CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITOR.

OWNERSHIP OF AfORTOAGES. HEARING ( 'ONTINUED. The action between Mata-nga Tai’huka (Air. L. T. Lm mini) as trustee for a number of other natives, ami Fergus Gale Dunlop and .Marjorie Helen Dunlop, in which tiie plaintiffs claimed the sum of £3343 and the transfer of certain mortgag fa, war, resumed before His Honor Mr. ,Justice Reed at the Supreme Court this afternoon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Dunlop, Matari ga Tailinlm denied that he had sold his interests in the mortgage. When confronted with an agreement, whereby lie assigned his rights the witness said that if he had signed the agreement it was bemuse Mr. Dunlop persuaded him to. He denied that Mr. Dunlop had appeared iVr him j i the Manga in case stating that lie wa.- his own lawyer.

Ttmigi Rikin-mgi, another banofieinry in the mortgage, stated that lie had never been present at nny'meeling i.f the beneiioiarias, rend he had never heard of a meeting called for the purpose of considering this transfer of the mortgage to Mr. Dunlop. ! To .Mr. Dunlop the witness said he had not attended any meetings of benefioia.: iei?. He had brought an ;u Lion claiming inclusion in the trust, hut had not bun successful. As a result of this ho had never been consulted in regard to matters affecting the trust. Kara aria. Kerekc.re stated that lie has a. member of the committee set up to deal with the mortgage. He had soM his interests in Hie, mortgage to Dr. Kahlenberg and to Mr Hamilton Irvine. After the execution of the sub-mortgage lie had been required to give a mortgage over his' house in. respect of the sale’. As a. result of this he now had a personal interest in the action. As the hhad of tlie JKerekere family he was ahie to say that none of the family owed any .costs to Mr Dunlop. Anything that was owing had either been paid or deducted by Mr Dunlop from interest which had been collected. Witness had never been asked to agree to the transfer of the mortgage to Mrs Dunlop, and had lie been asked he would not have, agreed. “Mr Dunibp. knows 1 am a hard-headed man,” added the witness,’ “and lie would not tell me anything. J have never been had by him yet, but most of the natives have.’’ (Laughter). Continuing, the witness .said Mr Dunlop had opposed witness being one of the committee, and Mr Dunlop had never advised him of a. meeting in regard to the mortgage. When witness asked about the £6089, he was informed that it was all right —it, was in Mrs Dunlop’s name. Witness had, written to Mr Dunlop, informing him about the difficulty with regard to Dr. Kahlenberg and Mr Irvine, and had received a telegram in reply, stating that if it could he arranged for the case against him to be dropped he would settle their troubles and make Mrs Dunlop give the mortgage back. Mown ore Mat ifci, another beneficiary, stated Dial she had never bran as! ed In consent to :i transfer of the rnoitgage lo Mrs. Dunlop, and had never attended a meeting at which (he matter had be;m discussed. " Roy Fell owes Baird, District Laud Registrar, deposed to having 'received from Mr. Dunlop a transfer of mortgage front two natives to Mrs. Dunlop. Thr. consideiallot! v.r.s shown us £6OOO. but. front his experience' of Mr. Dunlop he know lie was trot, in possession of 6000 shillings, let alo-.no £OOOO. and. in consequence, lie called for proof positive: of the payment-. Mr. Dunlop admitted that the l money had hot passed, and witness (lien demanded a declaration of trust. This was duly made to the affect that Mrs. Dunlop was to hold a eeilain part of t tie morlgage money for Mr. Dm drop aiultho balance for t-lio unlives. The norlion to ho held for Mr. Dunlop did not exceed £2OOO, and was, Im thought, actually £I6OO. A ft-w weeks later the same mortgage was sub-mortgaged for £2400. FTo then knew that this was in exccos of Mr. Bunion’s interest in the mortgage, and tic a'cnlistcl that the matter was one for investigation. Mr. Dunlop then addressed the Court.