MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7179, 2 June 1891, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

»■ ■ ■' " RANGIORA. This Day. (Before H. S. Wardell, Esq., E.M., E. E. Good, A. Todd and W. Buss, Eggs.) Civil Cases. — W. Vaughan v. Philips, claim £3 ss. Amount paid but not expenses. The summons had not been served, therefore no order could be made for payment of expenses. — Snme v. W. Poster, £19 13s 4d ; adjourned. — W. H. Spademan v. F. Busch, claim jSS 6a4d for professional services ; £1 7s 8d paid into Court, but not accepted. The charge 3 were for appearing for Mr Busch on two occasions in an action taken against him by one Gibbs, and for making arrangements to obtain a loan for defendant, also for preparingmortgagedeeds in connection therewith. Plaintiff stated that Gibbs' case was struck out on the first hearing, and, on a fresh summons being taken out, Mr Wynn-William9 appeared in place of witness. In respect to the mortgage business, plaintiff stated that on Nov. 24, 1889, defendant instructed him to procure a loan of .£IOOO. On Dec. 3 they went into the whole question, and fixed the costs of the mortgage at £G 15s. On Dec. 17 witness wrote to defendant, telling him that he had procured the advance, and asking whether he should prepare the mortgage deed. Did not receive a reply, but went on with the wort. On Dec. 24 he saw defendant, who said he had changed his mind about the loan and would not take tho money. P. Busch, for the defence, stated that plaintiff agreed to conduct the case with Gibbs for £1 la, and he (defendant) was averse to the case being struck out on a technical point raised by Mr Spaekman, but the latter said that he would put Gibbs to all the trouble possible so that if he won he would not get anything out of the case. In respect to the loan, he noticed an advertisement in the Lyttcllon Times offering money at 5 per cent, and he asked Mr Spackman to make enquiries about it, as his son would probably need an advance. He gave no instructions to have the advance arranged for. The letters Mr Spackman wrote were delivered at Rangiora while witness was at Southbridge, hence the reason why no replies were forwarded. On learning from Mr Spackman that he had prepared the mortgage deeds.he told him that he had not instructed him to do so, and that ho did not require the loan. The money could not be obtained at 5 per cent. Plaintiff told him that he had JBIIOG to lend for a client, but witness did not agree to take it, he not having seen hit son. The amount paid into Court was .£1 la for appearing in Gibb3' case and 6s 8d for enquiring respecting the monej offered at 5 per cent. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £$ 7s Bd, the Resident Magistrate holding that as Sections 139 and 140 of the Resident Magistrates Act provided that a solicitor who hac acted for plaintiff or defendant in Couri must deliver a bill of costs to his clieni within seven days after appearing, failing which he could not recover the amount ii Court, plaintiffs claim in respect to hii services in Gibbß'J case could not b< allowed.