A PEGUIAR CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81877, 30 October 1906, Page 3

A PEGUIAR CASE.

SOME TALL SWEARING. Actions against logal firms for negligence are not of frequent occurclence. One of these came on at the New Plymouth S.M. Court on Monday morning, when Thomas Mills, at one time a farmer at Inglewood and now of Palmerston North, sued Messrs Standish and Kerr for £7O, for alleged negligence in carrying out the instructions given by the plaintiff '0 defendants to prepare an agreement for the sale of certain interests from

the plaintiff to Downian Bros-. The plaintiff's evidence was mainly a repetition of his claim. His instructons had been given to Mr MacDiarmid, then managing clerk for defendants in the firm's Ingelwood office. These institutions were never cancelled, and never altered to a transaction in leasehold. The agreement which he signed was not read over to him No instructions were given to Mr Weston in the. matter; he had always refused to go into Mr

Weston's office, even to pay money. When the plaintiff heard from Dowman Bros, that they would not complete the purchase, he went to defendants about it and claimed to be paid the £7O. He demanded his papers, and after two years' bothering he got them. Then he sent in a written claim. He also aaked personally for payment of £7O, saying, "Surely, someone should pay me." Standish and Kerr told him they would not pay, and advised him to sue Doman Bros. The S.M.: Who told you that? Plaintiff: Mr Kerr, 1 think. But I'm not going to answer straight to that I don't know, for there was always a crowd of them about. Finding he could get no money in this way, he threatened to sue. "What solicitor will you employ?'' asked Mr Kerr, but the witness answered, "I'll tell you that later on." Mr Kerr opened a scathing crossexamination. "You can read and write?" "Yes."

You a,'c rather fond of law? You know what I mean —you read the newspaper reports of all the law ca-es, and so forth '< "Oh no," he didn't. Continuing,' plaintiff said that under lua agiement with Percival, he had to pay a deposit of ,£IOO in May, and a further sum ol 10; on June lSm, but an extension of a niontn was granted. Under the original agreement he was not allowed to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land without the previous consent of Percival. Mr Ken suggested that the lailure to complete was because that consent could not be obtained. The plaintiff denied that flatly, and also denied that he had ever received a letter from Mr Weston, agreeing to u postponement of the date of the deposit until May 21st. (Copy of letter was produced threatening to terminate tne negotiations unless the payment was made by that date.) The plaintiff stated that he had had a verbal promise from Percivl that as the buildings on the place were not completed, Ire would give him a month's extension in which to pay, and before the month had elapsed the place had been sold to Dowman Bros. He would swear that he had never instructed Mr Standish to raise a loan fo ,£750 for him. Mr Kerr produced copies of correspondence that had passed, but ptaintift denied any knowledge of it. He was quite positive that he never accompanied Mr MacDiarmid and never, there or anywhere else, agreed to the cancellation of the then existing agreement. He had never received any bill of costs from Weston's office, and the copy of the bill produced had no original. Mr Kerr produced the letter book from Mr Weston's office, showing that the plaintiff had agreed to cancel the agreement, and enter into another for a lease of the land. The plaintiff denied the correctness of the entry. He knew nothing of it, had never signed it, and the fac simile of his signature was a forgery. The Bench to witness; Welh. how daro you state that Mr Weston has forged entries in his book.' The plaintiff entered into a lengthy denunciation of legal methods, made inuendoes, and threatened >o pour out a whole flood ol information that would rather upset several lawyers he could name.

Plaintiff denied putting his signature to a second mortgage given to Mr Standish and Mr Claude Weston. Mr Kerr: Then you say Mr Standish and Mr Weston furged your signature, eh i

Plaintiff reiterated his denial of'his signature, and stated U" second mortgage was ever in existence. Counsel: But we've got three witnesses to your signature.

Plaintiff: 1 don't caie if you've got forty. f never signed it. The Magistrate said the case must fail il Mr Kerr could prove Mills' signatures.

Mr Claude Weston, hamster, was called, and he ■demitied the signature, lie had often seen it. and nad it <>n a promissory note now in his pos-essi"ii. lie read a draft _cupy ot the authority given i.,y planuilt for cancellation of the agreement to buy a freehold, and tiie substitution

1 o leasehold.' The draft had been 01 *" , -'id amended by Messrs peruicd a,.. -, i . i t. i-i i , "--' a nu returned, atandish and Ken, - ~, »,i'ii« Then Ids call book, showed u>2i - M « lb

was in the ollicc on ihe idth, 17th and njth flay, Mr MaeDiarniU accompanying him. The Magistiate said he could see no use in continuing. It would lie rely waste the lime of the Court.

Mr Meal yard said it certainly seemed that Mills signed the agreement, i'lainiiff, however, was still without his .£7O, and the firm was liable for not collecting it. He thought lu: would continue calling evidence. The Magistrate: 1 can't slop you calling this evidence from now to Dooms day, but it will do no good.! My mind is made up. Mr Meatyard: Hut we aro still without our ,£7O. The liench: Mr Slandish says he is still without his £IOO. Judgment for defendant, with costs. In this case the evidence of Mr MacDiarmid was taken in Hamilton on commission.