DISPUTED COURT SETTLEMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 3, 19 August 1911, Page 5

DISPUTED COURT SETTLEMENT.

At the last session of the Supreme ’ Court at New Plymouth, Rasmus Andersen sued John George Buchanan for £5Ol damages for seduction. The case was settled by Mr, Spence, for plaintiff, announcing that an agreement had been signed by both parties, and it stood adjourned for nine months to enable the terms of the agreement to be carried out. The agreement stipulated the payment of a certain sum of money, and as this had not been paid Andersen procoodT od against Buchanan at the Magistrate's Court yesterday for its recovery. Mr. Spence appeared for plaintiff and defendant was not represented, by counsel. Defendant asked for an adjournment on the ground that he had not had sufficient time to instruct counsel, but the S.M. decided that ample time had been given, and the case was proceeded with. Mr. Spence called Alexander Hart Johnstone, barrister and solicitor, New Plymouth. Before giving evidence Mr. Johnstone explained that he was not giving evidence voluntarily against his previous client, having been subpoenaed. He also mentioned the matter of privilege. Mr. Spence said he did not intend to ask any questions which would ih--1 volve privilege. Mr. Johnstone, in evidence, said he acted as counsel for present defendant in an action against him by Rasmus Anderson. The agreement produced had been signed by himself on express instructions from defendant. Befdro.tho document was signed it was shown to defendant in the corridor of the Supreme Court. 1 . Defendant: ion say you read iu over to me ? WitnessrT read it over to you near tho Court office. Defendant: I do not remember it. Witness: On the morning of the hearing I met you in the street and L told you the terms of an agreement suggested, and you agreed to it. Defendant, in evidence, said ho was a farmer,'and resided up to a short time ago at Kohuratahi. H c gave Mr. Johnstone no instructions in writing or verbally to sign the agreement. One agreement was discussed but not adopted, and then he decided not to 1 entertain any agreement. In answer to Mr. Spence, defendant' admitted seeing Mr. Johnstone in the corridor of the Court, lie could not see any document in Ins hand. Mr. Johnstone did not read over the agreement or explain its purport. He would not deny that Mr. Johnstone might have said something about an agreement on the basis oi £240. Witness was sitting in the back of tho Court when tho case was called on. He heard counsel for plaintiff addressing the Bench aiid asking -for an adjournment until iJi ■»> but did not hoar anything said about a settlement. He nad seen the settlement announced in the newspapers, buti had not seen Mr. Johnstone on the matter; . ■ • . . Al , ; The S.M. said it seemed plain that defendant was not bona fide m the matter, apparently having regretted making an agreement and had endeavoured to throw the responsibility on his counsel. ,In all cases where lie was examined on a conversation defendant only remembered half of it, forgetting the important part. In suen cases ho (the S.M.) always disbelieved tho evidence. ' Judgment 1 was given for the amount claimed, "£l4l‘ 19s 4dj<>with costs £ll Os Bd.