A PECULIAR CASE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13914, 27 May 1909, Page 2

A PECULIAR CASE.

ACTION* AGAINST A SOLICITOR. AN" ABSFKD CLAIM. It has often been said by those competent to.speak with am lioruy, that Timnru is fortunate in possessing a legal fraternity of unimpeachable integrity—lawyers who hold in contempt that which is mean anil miihlkl. and who. in the practice of their profession act in .such manner as to reflect'credit upon themselws. and bring lionour to the tow n in which they labour. This being so. it came as something of a surprise at Court yesterday morning to hear the name of one of the most lu'ghly esteemed members of the profession. railed as the defendant in a suit for £7d. It was soon made evident however, that the claim was utterly baseless and that it should never have been brought into being. ' Briefly stated • the facts of the case are-as follow:—An elderly man named Lorgelly some little time ago decided to sell a hb'ise and section of his, to a man named McDougail. He asked Mr Knubley to prepare the sale agreement. and this. Mr Knubley did, taking care to insert the usual clause providing that the purchaser should insure the house in the vendor's name until all the purchase money had been paid. The price of the house and sec- ; tion was £l2-3. After the agreement "had been signed. Mr Knubley impress- : ed upon Mr Lorgelly the need for see- , | ing- that the-house was kept insured,, but lorgelly replied that he had never insured and did not believe in it as he considered it- a waste oi' money. Some time after this, in February last, the house was destroyed by fire, and .Mr Knubley on seeing Mr Lorgellv asked him if he had acted upon his advice to see that the house was insured. Mr Lorgellv said he had not done so. but he said that Mr Knubley had received the insurance money. £7O. which .sum the plaintiff now claimed. Mr James Hay, who Mr Knublcv in the case, said that at no time" had Mr Knubley promised to insure the house, nor had he elone so. It was no business of his at all. but. lie had advised Mr Lorgellv to' insure. It so happened that the purchaser of the property, unknown either to Mr Knubley or Mr Lorgellv, had insured the house for £7O aud lie had received the insurance money. After the destruction of t"he hftuse Mr Lorgelly told Mr Knubley that- he wanted to sell the vacant section. Mr Knubley told him that he could not do that as it was in McDougall's name and McDougail had made no default in his payments—was in fact ahead with them. Mr Lorgellv got Mr Knubley to write to' McDougail asking him to surrender the section for the £62 which remained unpaid upon it, and finally McDougail agreed to this. Mr Lorgelly therefore had lost nothing (the section beiug worth £BO to-day) and had no legiti mate claim against anyone. Mr Knublev gave evidence in support of his counsel's statement of the case, and though Mr Lorgelly maintained that Mr- Knubley had received . the £7O, he was- unable to prove, that lie had done so. or to show why he should have received it, seeing that he had nothing to do with' the insurance, and did-not- even know the place was insured until after the fire. The Magistrate said, there could be no good in proceeding further with the case. It was evident that the plaintiff was labouring under a delusion and that he had no claim whatever upon Mr Knubley. Judgment would be for the defendant, with costs. Mr Knubley said that a possible explanation of the misconception under which the' plaintiff . was labouring, might be found in tl»e fact that when McDougail insured the house for £7O. Mrs McDougail insured the furniture for a similar sum, and when- she received.her cheque from the insurance conipany she took it to liim and asked him to cash it- for her, which he did, to oblige her. '