SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19812, 2 December 1919, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. Ilis Honor Mr Justice Hcrdinnn presided at a civil sitting of the Supremo Court this morning. QUESTION OF AGENCY. Archie Donald Paterson (Air G. T. Weston), of Christchurch and Loudon, whoso attorney in New Zealand is his wile, Edith Mary Patei son, ot toumner, proceeded against blarney Wynne Jameson, of Christchurch, accountant (Mr M, J. Gressou) tor the return ot certain documents and money which had been placed in his lumas as attorney. Air Weston stated that matters of fact were admitted and that the whole question was otto of remuneration. I'laiuuff had gone to England hunedly, and delcUuant was appointed his. attorney. Tho question ol remuneration was held over until Mr Paterson s return. In June of this year plaintiff’s wife returned, cancelled defendant’s power of attorney and made a demand for return of documents and moneys held. Defendant claimed that he had a lion over tho documents and money and would hold them until tho matter was settled. Defendant had been paid £IOO a year for tho management ot plaintiff’s affairs, but he now demanded £2OO a year, His Honor: 1 understand, then, that the whole point is one of remuneration ? Air Weston: That is so. As, however, the main facts arc not in dispute, J would suggest, that the ease oe commenced with consideration of the defendant's couutcr-cjaim. This course was agreed to and Mr Gressou presented a detailed history of the whole matter. Plaintiff was a consulting engineer and surveyor, was interested in an oil venture, and had also’property interests at Scarborough, Sumner. It was principally in connection with the administration of the Scarborough property that defendant was concerned. Mr Paterson was the inventor of an important carburretor improvement, and at short notice in September, 1910, went, to England to place the English rights of the patent. Defendant was appointed plaintiff's attorney, and owing to plaintiff going ImTiedly defendant had to do the’best he could with his trust without being conversant with it. Difficulties arose in connection 'with tho administration of tho Scarborough property which involved defendant m much correspondence and wort. Plaintiff had written expressing his satisfaction with defendant’s work and had said that when the time came adequate recompense would be forthcoming. Defendant drew; £IOO on account for bis first year’s work, £IOO for the second and £75 for the remaining time in the third year. His Honor; The claim Is for the return of the documents and £ll9 3s 2d m money. Plow do yon claim the right to bold them Y Mr Gressou: By reason of tho question of remuneration being held over till plaintiff’s return from England and because of defendant’s agency and attorneyship. Tho return of Mrs Paterson and her demand for cancellation of the power of attorney and return of documents and money came as a bolt nom the blue. The £IOO a year drawn by defendant was on account onlv, though it was evident from subsequent that plaintiff considered that -MU) a year was adequate remuneration. Ihe great amount of work connected with the administration was AfP si cl creel by defendant, to Ho worth t-UO a year for carrying out, and be claimed that amount. Evidence was given bv defendant ns to the nature of the work he carried out in connection with tho administration of plaintiff’s affairs. He had no idea ofjhe amount of work involved and roiipfl upon plaintiff rocogni&inc unit and compensating him according. Edwin Henry Staples Hamilton, an employee of the firm of Messrs W. •lameson_ and Son, gave evidence as to Lie administration of plaintiff’s affairs tyikmg t:p considerable part of defendant s lime, especially during the first two years. Another member of the firm was also engaged lengthily in the work, (Proceeding.)