AGENT'S REMUNERATION.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1810, 2 December 1919, Page 11

AGENT'S REMUNERATION.

AMOUNT IN DISPUTE. SUPREME COURT ACTION. A case in which an attorney refuses to deliver papers, deeds and documents until he is paid an adequate remuneration came before his Honour Mr Justice Herdman in, the Supreme Court this morning. Tho plantiff was Archie Donald Paterson, civil engineer, of Christchurch, whose attorney in New Zealand is his wife, Edith Mary Paterson, of Sumner, and the "defendant was Stanley Wynne Jameson, accountant, of Christchurch. The claim was for £11!) 3/2, and the possesson of documents. The statement of clam set out that defendant was, until July 11, 1010, the attorney in New Zealand of plaintiff. On July'.ll, 1019, defendant held in his possession the sum of £ll9 3/2, and papers, deeds and documents of value. By power of attorney, granted on March 14, 1019, plaintiff appointed his wife as his attorney in New Zealand, wth power to revoke the power of attorney previously given by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff's wife, on or about July 11, 1010, therefore revoked defendant's power of attorney, and requested the retumtof the sum of £ll9 3/2, anil that the papers, etc., should be handed over. Defendant refused, and refused to hand over the money or the papers. Plaintiff, therefore, asked for the sum of £ll9 3/2, for an order that inquiry be made of the papers, etc., for the possession of the papers, or for £SO damages, in case such possession cannot be had, or for £5 damages for detention thereof.

Defendant counterclaimed a remuneration of £2OO per year for two years and nine months. He had been paid £275, being at the rate of £IOO a year, and a further sum of £275 was therefore claimed. Mr, 6.' T. Weston represented the plaintiff and Mr M. J. Gresson the defendant. Mr Weston, in outlining the case, stated that the question of remuneration had been left over at plaintiff's request until his return to New Zealand. In June last his wife returned to New Zealand, and the power of attorney vested in defendant was cancelled. Defendant refused to return the money or papers. Mr Gresson claimed that defendant had a lien on the mo*ey for remuneration. Defendant should receive £2OO a year. His Honour: It is a question of remuneration? Mr Gresson: Yes! I admit that defendant has got the money and scrip, but, as agent, ho had a right to keep them. Defendant claims that he has a lien as agent and stockbroker,. His Honour: You claim that the work is worth £2OO a year?— Yes. Mr Gresson stated that, in 1916, plaintiff went to England at short notice in connection with the disposal of the English rights of a carburettor which he had invented.' Plaintiff was interested in certain speculations. He left his affairs in the hands of defendant, who had nqt been fully instructed. Yet plaintiff had expressed satisfaction at the way he had carried out his work. Defendant claimed that his remuneration should be £2OO a year and not £IOO, as offered. The question of remuneration was not definitely settled, plaintiff stating that defendant would be satisfactorily provided for. Mr Gresson then went on to enumerate the concerns and speculations in which plaintiff was interested. The interests of plaintiff, therefore, threw considerable work on defendant. His Honour: What I have to decide then is what remuneration should 'be paid to defendant. (Proceeding.)