LYSNAR V. TE MAIRE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2570, 3 August 1909, Page 4

LYSNA R V. TE MAIRE.

o'hf PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL UPHELD. (Per Press Association.) .. WELLINGTON, August 2. In announcing judgment in tho appeal case, Lysnar v. Alumata te Maire, Mr Justice Williams, Acting Chief Justice stated that 'from the evidence of the’Judge of the Validation Court it appeared there was a rule or that Coin „ requiring appearance to bo nled. Mr. Finn solicitor, gave notice ol motion in that Court on behalf of a number of natives, among whom were respondents. for the payment- to them of certain moneys by the East Coast Commissioner, but did not enter an appear,incc. for these natives. Jhe motion came before tho Court, and was ad--1 iourned 1 rorn time to time until the 1 Bth of Januarv, when Mr. Finn appeared for the natives and Mr. Nolan for the Commissioner raised the queelion as to Mr. fa Win s appeal ajicc, statjug that Mr. Lysnar appeared on the Court records. Mr. Firm objected to ■giving notice to Air. Lysnar, alleging that be was acting without a retainer. The Judf'c decided that as ■ his name appeared on the record be should have notice, and the ease was adjourned so that he could be notified. In consequence of that notice Air. Lysnar came before tho Court on the 17th of February., when tho motion again came on for hearing. Air Lysnar was represented by counsel, and took no part jin the proceedings except that, according to the Judge, he claimed to represent several sets of natives. What he claimed was really a lien on the fund for his costs, and there was no suggestion that he asked the Court to dismiss the motion, or make any particular order. The Court, however,,dismissed the motion. Respondents claimed damages against appellant in consequence of this dismissal, and an injunction to restrain him from acting as their solicitor. Dismissal of the motion was not an act of appellant, hut an act of the Court, for which appellant was not responsible. Appellant was not examined upon the accounts, and had no opportunity_of explaining them. There was not sufficient material .efore the lower Court to enable a satisfactory conclusion to bo drawn. The appeal would he allowed, with costs in the Court below, as if £250 had been claimed, and costs in the Court of Appeal on the middle scale, and as from a distance. Other members of the Court delivered separate judgments, expressing the same opinion.