ACCOUNTANT’S CASE

Taranaki Daily News, 3 June 1933, Page 5

ACCOUNTANT’S CASE

CONTESTED COUNTER-CLAIM. JUDGMENT BY MAGISTRATE. Decision in the claim and counterclaim action that has recently occupied the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court was given on Thursday by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M. The original claim was by George Coombe, retired farmer, against C. T. Mills, accountant, for £ll3 7s 4d, and Mills made a counter-claim for £ll6 5s as being a balance due for professional services. The claim was admitted and the hearing centred about the counter-claim. Mr. A. G. Anderson appeared for Coombe and Mr. F. S. Grayling for Mills. In his judgment Mr. Woodward awarded Mills £42, of which £l5 had already been paid. Stanley E. Nielson, public accountant, said he had inspected the statements given to Mills and the books and papers prepared by him. The statements appeared to be quite straightforward, and he could not see that they would present any extraordinary difficulties. It appeared to him that 100 days would ba an excessive time to take over the work. He suggested 30 guineas as a charge for it. To Mr. Grayling he said the work had been well done in the usual way. It would entail a little more work if the statements were given Mills in" two lots. COOMBE’S CASE. For Coombe Mr. A. G. Anderson said there were two alternate defences. Firstly, that a definite arrangement was made for Mills to do the work for a nominal sum with an understanding that if Coombe were successful in an action he contemplated bringing he would make it worth Mills’ while. The whole history of the case bore out this explanation. If, however, the magistrate held that such an arrangement was not made, then the defence contended that Mills’ charge . was excessive. It was significant that from the time Mills furnished the finished report in 1929 no further statements were Handed him to be checked, although Coombe was receiving them reguarly, and counsel suggested that Mills then knew that his work for Coombe was finished. The only other definite thing that Mills did for Coombe was to. execute a search. It was also inconceivable that if Mills considered that Coombe owed him a considerable amount, he should borrow several sums' from Coombe with no mention of the account which Coombe was supposed to owe him. Counsel then went on to con- . tend that the fee of 125 guineas set upon . the work done -by Mills was far too - high. COUNSEL FOR MILLS. For Mills Mr. Grayling said that there was no doubt that the work had been : done and had been authorised by Coombe. The latter admitted that the work had been well done and that he had recovered some of the capital that had gone astray. Mr. Grayling strohgly attacked the bonus arrangement men- ’ tioned by the other side, saying nothing had been heard of it until the plaintiff gave his evidence. There had been no. suggestion of any definite amount or method of computing it He submitted that all the work had been authorised and that all payments were entered by Mills as being on account He contended that Coombe’s real objection to paying Mills was that the security upon which he had advanced money had deteriorated. The delay in the rendering of the account was due to the fact that Coombe had at no time intimated to Mills that the suggested action would not be taken. Mills had not been given the later statements of accounts because he had already clarified the position for Coombe. Only the man who actually did the work knew the amount of labour involved, Mr. . Grayling said in conclusion, when referring to the amount of the charge. JUDGMENT DELIVERED. In giving judgment Mr. Woodward said that Coombe’s version was that apart from the preliminary work done by Mills, for which he was to receive two or three guineas, he was to be paid for anything further by a bonus from the proceeds of anything that might be recovered from a contemplated action against a third person. There appeared to be a ring of truth in Coombe’s evidence on that point. The next question was as to what was to happen if nothing were recovered from the third person, and as to that he had. no direct evidence, but there was some evidence from what the parties did. The bonus had proved to be illusory, but Coombe had not sought to recover some small amounts lent to Mills, being content to take the view that they went in payment of further work done by Mills. His attitude was not consistent with the v supposition that further money was to be paid to Mills only if certain sums were recovered from elsewhere. There appeared to be no arrangement as to what would happen if the bonus was not forthcoming, but it was clear that Mills expected to be paid a reasonable amount in the ordinary way. Since there was no such arrangement he held that Mills was entitled to recover a reasonable amount for the work done, for which £l5 had been already paid. The magistrate was quite in accord with Mr. Anderson when he said that the account had been considerably inflated. Mr. Niel- , son, who, of the accountants called, had had most opportunity of understanding what Mills had done, had placed the fee at 30 guineas, but that was before it was brought to his notice that certain other work had been done. ’ Therefore, that estimate would be increased by ten guineas, making 40 guineas, or £42, from which was to be deducted the £l5 already paid, leaving £27 still owing. Judgment was accordingly, given in Coombe’s favour on the original claim for £ll3 7s 4d (costs £6 9s) and in Mills’ favour for £27 (costs £4 13s and witnesses’ expenses) on the counter-claim.