GURR V. REVANS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 71, 29 January 1879, Page 2

GURR V. REVANS.

To the Editor of the Wairarapa Daily iLongwood, July 27. your issue of the 23rd inst,, appears what purports, to bo a report of the above caso, " IVom an occasional Correspondent," _ 1' very much regret that; you should in publishing have inadvertently been led to allow your columns to bo used by the writer for tho purpose of gratifying his privatb feel- ' ings with regard ■ to- tfie defendant, I, of courso, .have no idea who tlii3 writer may. be, but having boen present, throughout the hear-. . ing of the case (not on tho Bench) I can say, positively, that nothing but'some personal feeling can have induced him to invent'such a paragraph as tho following"Tho Magistrate, in summing up, commented on the con-" tradictory nature- of tho evidence on both sides, but he had no difficulty in arriving at' tho conclusion (hat there had hen an evident desire on the part of the defendant to mislead ■ the plaintiff as to the price obtained for the land; he should thorefore give judgment for tho amount claimed (£4O), costs of Court and professional costs."—Which is absolutely and entirely false. The Magistrate, on the con* truiy, said in effect that tho evidence of the two parties being entirely contradictory, in the absence of any indisputable proof of the special agreement pleaded by defendant, ho must hold that the transaction was an ordinary one as betweou owner and agent, and therefore nothing more than tho ordinaiy commission coidd be claimed, " and on this ground alone gavo judgment for the plaintiff. He expressed no opinion whatever as to the credibility of either party, and certainly said nothing which could possibly be uulerstood in the sense stated m the paragraph I have quoted. The intention of the writer of tho report is still further shown by his having, entirely suppressed my evidence, which was given to show that Mr I'evans could not have intended to disguise the fact of his having made £SO on the transaction, as I bad heard of it as a rumor within a few days, and had asked him if it was true, when he told 111 c, without the slightest reservation that it was. This was not, of course, given with a view : of influencing the decision, but morely to clear the defendant from any imputation of having acted • with any intention of mislcading'toe plaintiff, , who, he thought, was probably well aware oLthe fact. The evidence, hoivover, showed clearly that ho was not, and therefonTlClie • whole caso resolved itself into one of a simple misunderstanding betweon the parties/which resulted in very contradictory statements, being made, though there was nothing to lead any. impartial porson to conclude lhat either had acted with any improper ;intentions. I offer you no apology for asking you to publish this, as I think it must beclejyrtfl all your readers that such sentiition ought to exposed,—l [We had every, veason to belicvfHߣRS| respondentia! no personal interest ifiSffliSffl He may liavo mistaken apoint in Mr summing up, and indeed wo have' tho tfc.imony of Mr Wardell himself that such was the case. The practice of a commission agent charging more than his legal commission is, in any instance, a most objectionable one, and it is 110 wonder if a gentleman who has been unwise enough to adopt it finds himself misrepresented. No doubt our correspondent will defend himself against the charges brought forward by Sir Pharazyn, We shall expect him to do so.—En, W. D;]