MONEYS CLAIMED

Southland Times, Issue 22157, 27 October 1933, Page 9

MONEYS CLAIMED

ECHO OF LAND TRANSACTION DEFENDANT CONSENTS TO JUDGMENT. Alleging that she had paid the defendant a specified sum as the purchase money in respect to certain land ■transactions and that only a portion had been handed over, Elizabeth Barr Reid, wife of Donald McGregor Reid, of Portobello, farmer (Mr R. B. Bannerman), claimed in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M., the amount of £l6l 10/from Peter Gilfedder, of Invercargill, who in person defended the suit. In her statement of claim, plaintiff set out that she had employed the defendant to do certain work for her in connection with transactions in native land. On June 11, 1931, she paid him £505 10/-, being the purchase money for certain native lands for payment by defendant to the Native Land Court, Defendant, however, had paid only £338 15/-. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had not done the work he had been supposed to do for her and had refused to hand over the money which he was holding on the defendant’s behalf. Plaintiff accordingly claimed £lBl 10/-.

Mr Bannerman, in opening his case, said that the facts were somewhat unusual and he regretted that he would have to make certain allegations against a former practitioner. Gilfedder, when in practice, was appointed by the plaintiff to complete certain land transactions. Reid, her husband, handed Gilfedder a cheque for £505 10/-, being the exact amount due to the Native Land Board with instructions that it should be paid over. Some time later Reid found that the cheque had not gone through his bank account so communicated with the defendant. It was later ascertained that the cheque had been paid into Gilfedder’s trust account a day or so later and that only £3OO odd had been sent to the board, while the balance, alleged counsel, had been simply dwindled away by the defendant for his own purposes as was shown by the trust account. Reid, as agent, had never received a single statement regarding costs, etc., nor a reply to letters. Later the Law Society took the matter up and Gilfedder was struck off the roll. There was no doubt but that the amount had been paid to the defendant for a special purpose and should have been held by him exclusively for that purpose. Counsel, continuing, suggested that the question of costs had nothing to do with the case at all—the money should have been paid over intact. The question of costs, however, was material in one way for Gilfedder, as the defendant had stated that an arrangement was made to the effect that Reid should pay as costs £1 an acre. As there were 73 acres involved in the transactions, Gilfedder was endeavouring to obtain £73 for putting through the small deals. “Reid at one time worked in the office of his father (formerly a solicitor), and I suggest the plaintiff would not have been ‘mug’ enough to consent to such an arrangement nor does the correspondence between the parties bear that out,” added Mr Bannerman. The plaintiff, by her agent, stated that it was ultimately arranged that the costs should amount to £3O, yet the defendant had deducted some £9O from his trust account. Counsel suggested that in view of the correspondence the Court would have no difficulty in deciding what had happened. Gilfedder had now handed in a bill of costs amounting to £lO5, disbursements being charged up, but never paid. Furthermore, practically no work had been done yet and Gilfedder had had the effrontery to charge such a large amount.

Plaintiff’s husband, agent of Mrs Reid, then gave evidence along the lines of counsel’s opening, and was cross-examined at length by Mr Gilfedder.

In reply to defendant, Reid said that when the sale went through he had the money to enable the transactions to be completed. In 1929 he could have paid the whole purchase money, but, owing to the slump, in 1930, when the sale was confirmed, he did not have it himself, though he had made arrangements with his wife to provide the money required. In December, 1930, he paid Gilfedder £l5 10/- for costs. He did not remember the defendant stating that the application fees alone amounted to over that sum. Witness objected to a suggestion that he should pay £1 an acre as costs. He was not aware that it v/as necessary to get the consent of all the native owners, who, in the particular transactions, numbered very many. He arranged to pay £lO a transaction as Defendant: What is the purpose of these proceedings to-day? Is it to get a definite amount settled so that you can claim on the guarantee fund. Witness: I want to be reimbursed for the amount I have had to pay twice. At this stage, the defendant said he would consent to judgment for the sum of £l6l 1/6, with Court costs £3 14/- and solicitor’s fee £9 1/-.