SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2618, 28 September 1909, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper.) MONDAY, SEPT. 27th.

LYSNAR V. RANIERA TARAIRE AND OTHERS.

The second week of the Supreme Court session in Gisborne opened with the hearing of a motion to rescind or vary an order of Judge Edwards, dated August 24th, 1909. The order was made in the matter between the East Coast Commissioner (applicant) and William Douglas Lysnar (claimant) and Raniera Taraire and others, owners of the Nultutauria No. 1 and Moutero No. 1 blocks (claimants). Mr. J. W. Nolan appeared for the Commissioner, Mr. L. T. Burnard for William Douglas Lysnar, :amd Mr H. J. Finn for all the other claimants, except Kate Greening, who was represented by Mr. G. Stock. Mr Justice Edwards had ordered a stay of proceedings, and that until further order tho applicant should retain possession of all money payable by him to the claimants, the native owners, by order of the Validation Court dated March 30th. It was further ordered that the claimant William Douglas Lysnar and the claimants Raniera Taraire and others proceed to the trial of issues in the Supreme Court, in which Mr. Lysnar should he plaintiff and the others defendants. The questions to ho tried wore as follows: —(1) Whether any and (if any) which of the said natives retained and employed the claimant "W. D. Lysnar, as their solicitor to act for them in respect of the matters mentioned in the bill of costs of the said claimant (oopy annexed and filed)? (2) If it appeared that the claimant was not retained by any of the natives named as successors to deceased natives mentioned in the orders of the Validation Court, dated March 30th, then when such natives died, and whether tho persons named were successors to such deceased persons? (3) Whether any, and if so, which, of the items claimed in the bill of costs were m respect of the wort, journeys, etc., actually undertaken and performed by the claimant as solicitor duly retained bv the natives, or any of them? (4) If so, were the items of costs properly incurred and payable in respect of the proceedings in the Validation Court which have resulted in the recovery of such moneys? (5) Whether any and if so which of the items were included in hills and costs taxed by the Registrar and disallowed on taxation? (6) Whether the claimant was not upon such taxation wrongly allowed as against th© said natives, or as against funds to which the said natives were entitled, costs of taxation contrary to the provisions of tho Law Practitioners Act, 1882, arid if so what amount was wrongly so allowed or spent? (7) Whether the claimant ought not under the provisions of this Act to have been ordered to pay the costs of the said taxation, and if so. what sum ought he to have paid? (8) If the claimant should within ten days from the date of the order file in the Supreme Court and deliver to the solicitor for the said natives a clear statement of facts on which his claim was made for a lien upon the funds of the said natives in respect of the sum of £ll9 8s for interest then, but not otherwise, whether the claimant was entitled to maintain such lien ? If such statement be not filed the claim would he ipso facto barred. Similar conditions were made to app.y to the other claims. It was further ordered that subject to any order by the Judge presiding at the session, the issues aforesaid should be tried before the Judge to whom power was reserved to order any of the issues to be tried bv a jury,. or referred to the Registrar for enquiry and report, and to order aiw bill of costs involved in these proceedings to be taxed by the Registrar, and also to order any matter involved in the issues to be referred to the Native Land Court or to the Native Apjiellate Court or to the Validation Court if thought fit. It was reserved also to the Judge to make any further order he thought proper and deal with the incidental costs. Before the case was opened Mr. Nolan stated that there had been two other applications for money which had not yet come before the Court, and which he suggested might be included. The'Judge, however said it would not be advisable to add other parties to the present proceedings. Mr. L. T. Burnard moved that the order be varied, and clauses 5,6, and 7 be discharged, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The matter related to the moneys payable to the Native owners of the land referred to by the Commissioner. There wa s no evidence in the proceedings on which snch an order ns that of Mr. Justice Edwards’ could have been made. . , , Mr. Justice Cooper said that he was not disposed to discharge the order for two reasons. Firstly, because he did not see that His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards had no jurisdiction, and secondly because he did not wish to act *s a. Court of Appeal from His Honor s decision. The motion vvould be dismissed, and if counsel wished to appeal from this decision he could do so. Having dismissed the motion, with £3 3s costs, His Honor proceeded to try the issues as directed by Mr. Justice Edwards. ~ , t Counsel went on to explain that there were lour bills of costs by Mr. Lysnar against various Natives on all of which tho issues itL question were ordered to be tried, together with an issue set out in an assignment. He relied in establishing the fact that Mr. Lysnar was duly retained as solicitor by a number of Natives interested in the land in question and the'other seven Mahia blocks. The money disputed was money that had been made available in the hands of the Commissioner as a result of Mr. Lysnar’s efforts. The Validation Court had made orders for payments to certain Natives, and the money had been paid on their account, the balance of it now being the subject in question. Since then Mr. Lysnar had done a large amount of work to make the money available for which he now claimed. Survey liens had to be discharged, and other proceedings taken to relieve the land of expenses that would have absouheci it. Legislation had also to be prevented at considerable expense. The assignment made all moneys payable to the Natives over to Mr.' Lysnar, who held the same in trust to cover his own costs. Mr. Lysnar would account for all the money. Harold Carr, Native Land Court Registrar, produced documents and books connected with the case, and several Natives gave evidence. Evidence in support of his claims was also given by Mr. Lysnar, who stated that in 1895 he was practising as a solicitor. H<T remembered an application made in the Validation Court re the Mahia block. He was retained by all the Native owners of the different blocks except two—Hero Patiara and Maita Whenc—being instructed either by the Natives or their representatives. The Natives against whom the witness bad charged the hill were among those who retained him, and hie appearance

• was never disputed until recently by Mr. Finn. Until tile writ was issued in February, 1908, there had been no indication that the Natives did not want the witness to act for them. He performed the work set out in the bill. Mr. Lysnar said that the tabulated statement (produced) showed the divisions of the bill of costs. If the liens had not been cleared tho titlo would not have been granted,, Ormond and Walker were claiming leases over their properties which had to be cleared. These covered a number of blocks, including Motua No. 1. With regard to the General Trust estate there was a. Bill introduced into Parliament which had tho effect of putting all these trust properties into “hotch-potch.” The witness went to Wellington in connection with tho matter. If the Bill had passed he did not think the money would be available now. None of the Natives had objected to the Bill, but had, on the contrary, agreed. Mr. Lysnar will be cross-examined on his evidence this morning.

A CASE ADJOURNED. The case? of Frank Brayton Barker and Percival Barker v. the Gisborne Harbor Board, being a motion for a declaratory order under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 1908, interpreting certain cases in relation to portions of the Tauwhareparae block, was mentioned by Mr. G. Stock, who represented the applicants, who asked for an adjournment to Wellington. Mr. T. A. Coleman, for the Harbor Board, consented, ,and His Honor accordingly adjourned the case for argument.

SITTINGS AT WESTPORT

| Pun Press Association. I WEST PORT, Sept. 27. At the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Denniston presiding, Leslie Andrews was found guilty of indecent assault on a gir! on the Denniston-Burnett’s face road. Prisoner was admitted to probation for twelve months, with the condition that he must not he in hotels or take spirituous liquors, a plea of drunkenness having been set up as part defence. Accused was ordered to pay £l9 expenses. Romany Karooz, charged on three counts with committing perjury during the hearing of an assault case in tho Magistrate’s Court, was found not guilty. In the appeal of Thomas Moreden v. the Westport Coal Company, claim £l2 3s for damage to luggage through a truck on the Denniston becoming derailed, judgment was reserved.