CLAIM FROM A SOLICITOR

Taranaki Daily News, 8 July 1930, Page 14

CLAIM FROM A SOLICITOR

HOUSE RENOVATIONS AND ROOF. NO EVIDENCE OF CONTRACT FOUND. Without calling on counsel to reply to the arguments advanced Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., yesterday non-suited William Henry Aburn on his claim for £ll5 against Croker and McCormick, solicitors, and Cyril H. Croker. The money represented the cost of a new roof and renovations to a house in Gill Street, belonging to L. H. Scorar, formerly of New Plymouth but now of Ohakune. The hearing lasted all the afternoon and into the evening. Mr. A. K. North represented Aburn and Mr. R. H. Quilliam defended. The position was that Croker was solicitor to Scorar and, in addition, second' mortgagee of the property. Early in 1929 Scorar decided a new roof was necessary. He obtained several tenders, including one from Aburn. Croker and McCormick were approached with reference to raising the money. Plaintiff alleged that he had gone on wit the work of putting a roof and bungalow front on the house after Croker had told him to go ahead, his firm to find the money. The defence was that the pinuse ‘subject to valuation" had been mentioned and that Croker and McCormick had offered as solicitors to endeavour to raise money subject to the value of the propertybeing sufficient. The house was bought by Scorar for £1570 and at the time the negotiations for an advance for the roof were in train everyone believed there was no doubt about the valuation being sufficient to carry the,extra amount required. However, the valuer assessed the property at £l2OO and two-thirds of that amount, or £BOO, had already been lent by way of mortgages. Evidence for plaintiff was given by Aburn, J. Mclntosh, a builder who had done subsequent work on the place, and R. Whale, the tenant. Scorar’s evidence had been taken at Ohakune. In the course of his evidence Croker said that as second mortgagee £1 a week was payable to him in reduction of the sum he had advanced. In August, 1929, he was prepared to forego that payment in favour of Aburn to enable him to recover the amount due' to him. Subsequently he could have arranged for Aburn to take £5O in settlement of the debt but he would not agree to that. Cross-examined, witness said it was always understood the raising of the money was subject to the valuation being, satisfactory. He made the position abundantly clear both to Scorar and Aburn. He personally, did not want the new roof. Mr. North: The net result is that there is now a new roof on the house but Aburn has not got his money?—Yes. Witness said he could not now renew the offer of £1 a week to Aburn.. Mr. North maintained that that offer had never been communicated to Aburn; otherwise he would never have come to court. John Paton, accountant to Croker and McCormick, said the first occasion on which the matter was brought to his notice was when Scorar came to him and complained that the roof was leaking. Witness suggested it would be just as well to modernise the front of the place and Scorar agreed and decided to obtain prices. That was shortly before December, 1928. Later Aburn came into the office when Scorar was ' there. Scorar suggested Croker might lend more on his second mortgage but witness said he did not think so.

At the May interview in the 'office witness, in reply to Croker, said the first mortgagee had a sum of £260 available and subject to valuation he might be prepared to increase the mortgages to £lO6O. Croker then suggested Aburn, if he liked, could go ahead subject to the money being found on the new valuation. Croker made it perfectly clear that he, personally, could not find the money. Cross-examined, witness said he had been astonished when he found the new valuation was less than had been expected. Mr. North submitted that Croker, having authorised the work, was liable. He was interested both as solicitor and second mortgagee. It could not be suggested that without an understanding that the money would be forthcoming. Aburn would take a “sporting leap in the dark." The magistrate said it seemed that was what Aburn had done. Before he could succeed he would haye to prove that Croker or Croker and McCormick gave an order to go on with the roof. There was no evidence of a contract. Costs amounting to £9 Ils were allowed the defendant.