IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 496, 21 August 1890, Page 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Os Tuesday morning the case of Karaitiana v. Bennett and others was resumed. A long argument took place as to the issues to be submitted to tbe jury, Hir Honor ruling that he could allow no evidence as to tbe accounts now under invesiigation by another branch of the Court. Examination of Mr Bennett continued : Had given Mr Finn specific instructions in some matters, but not with others. Had given specific instructions as to some of the journeys performed by Mr Finn ; was not aware of a single case where he went away without bis (witness’) knowledge. Did not know of all the work done until he had received the bills of costs. Knew there must have been a great deal of work. Had gone cursorily through the bills of costs. [Mr Cooper interrupted, and His Honor said Mr Rees must try and remember that Mr Bennett was his own witness.] The first two bills received he had given to Mr Kenny to get taxed, telling him that anything that was too large should be cut down, ‘hough as far as they knew the work that Mr Finn hud done was satisfactory. Those were all the instructions. Forty pounds were piid to Mr Kenny on the taxation of the first bill, and on the third bill Mr Kenny had

sent in a claim for a like sum. Had not interfered in anyway as to the legal work or charge. Mr Finn told witness ha had received a lot of money. Did riot remember Mr Finn telling him when he had received the £1,595, but as that gentleman had witness’ receipt he must have told him. Told witness he (Mr Finn) was responsible for the amounts he received. Did not think Mr Finn said anything to him as to his liability. Only latterly had he asked Mr Finn for accounts—only since the commencement of tbe present action.' Knew Mr Finn had received items of £52, £319, £BO ; did not remember the items of £lB6 and £l5B, but Mr Finn might have told him of them — they were talking of five years ago. Mr Bell would like to know what this had to do with tbe issue.

Mt Rees said if he could show that the trustees knew of these amounts, and they were not properly accounted for it would show collusion. Mr Bell would ask it to be ruled out now. Mr Hees mightjlry andjget evidence that the moon was made out of green cheese, but that would have nothing to do wi'h the case. Hia Honor sail he could ha,dly tell what Mr Rees was trying to get out. Nothing irrelevant should be introduced. Mr Bell said Mr Rees waa trying to get one of hie own witneasea tn contradict what another of his witnesses had-eaid. Hia Honor said Mr Finn had attested that no proper bills had been put in for the amounts, but they had been noted, in his books, and the trustee informed of it. Examination continued: Had not given credit for these amounts because hehal not received them. Told Mr Finn to instruct Mr Watson. Had not seen Mr Watson himself about it. That was the only instruction he had given re the taxing of these coats. Should not be any wiser if ha himself had looked through the bills a dozen times. Had paid the bills for taxation, but not the last one.

Mr Cooper said he had no question-! to ask. Mr B l 1: Di! you not see Mr Wataon, and aek him about the bill ? Mr Reea: Oh, ask him what you want, Mr Ball 1 Mr Bell claimed that ha had a right to ask such a question and His Honor said ho would give every indulgence to the defendant. Mr Rees : So it seems. Hia Honor: Those are most impertinent remarks— Mr Rees : Your Honor has said so. His Honor: You have made most gross charges ngainat those people, and so far have not proved a word of it. These defendants are very much in the position of criminals in the dock, to whom every indulgence should be shown. Mr Rees: I have not objected to anything your Honor lias said, and on'y object to Mr Bell literally putting statements in the witness' mouth. His Honor : Mr Bell asked witness if he had not seen Mr Watson after he had seen Mr Finn. Witness continued : Hid told Mr Wataon some time before that he wou’d give him the next taxation. That was the reason he had

told Mr Finn to take the bill to Mr Watson. Could not remember whether he had subsequently told Mr Watson. Now he was reminded he remembered Mr Watson having come and spoken to him about ths bills, Mr Bill: With regard to the remark made by Mr Rees. I would like to say that Mr Bennett is not my client. I have had no communication direct nor indirect with bim and the augg> stion that I put words in hia mouth that he knew is not correct. Mr Raes denied he had put in that way. Mr Bell : You said that I wanted him to say words I put in bis mouth. Mr Rees repeated that Mr Bell had suggested replies. Mr Bell said Mr Rees should not make saoh imputations against him. G L. Greenwood, Registrar of the Supreme Court, was next called. Could not say what had become of the first large bill in the Karamu estate. Had searched very carefully for them

and could say positively they were not there now. Thought no affidavit had been filed, nor bad any oath been administered. Had not supposed there was any necessity for it. The bill took some hours to tax. On the second large one Mr Kenny attended at the taxation, for the trustees. As a rule witness personally examined the documents. The cists were charged for in the bill and no question was raised as to the propriety of any of the charges. Thn amounts had been taxed off where not satisfactorily accounted for—the items were enquire! into and the amounts struck out or reduced where there saemtd to be a necessity for it. Very often he took the absence of objections to small amounts as an indication that the charges were fair. In larger items as a rule questions were asked and nothing was passed that waa not satisfactorily explained. They generally went through the bills item by item. With regard to journeys, Mr Finn had produced a diary with entries. No objection was taken on any ground, Mr Bell: I would point out that all ths questions put by Mr Rees are leading, and I would ask your Honor to note it. Cross examined by Mr Bell: Thought the taxing of the bill referred to took two days. AVas under the impression Mr Watson had

carefully gons through tbe bill beforehand. Did not remember whether Mr Finn’s bank book had been produced. The same process of having documents, and going through i:em by item, he believed had been gone through in the first bi t He thought it took a great deal longer, Certainly had no reasop to suspect collusion between Mr Kenny and Mr Finn. Certainly had entered into no collusion wi'h any of the parties. [Mr Bell said he thought he had a right to ask these questions alter the suggestion lhat had been made. His Honor: Of course. Mr Rees said no collusion hid been imputed to the Registrar or solicitors. Mr Bell said it had been suggested, at any rate he wished to put it beyond doubt. | As Registrar had not sat to ratify any chargee which Mr Kenny had approved rf. Frequently made objections Rimself. Of course many of these items are better understood by a lawyer. Did not in this case or any other allow items to pass if hs disapproved of them. Ths taxation of the second

bill by Mr Watson took eight hours ex'ending over four days. The answers given in regard to the first and third bills were applicable also to the second. Certainly had no reason to suspect collusion between Mr Watson and Mr Finn. Remembered a collision between them. Mr Finn got annoyed at sorrie reductions that had been made, bundled up his papers, and went away, saying he would have nothing to do wi h such taxation. There was no further open hostility so far as he knew. To Mr Rees: Had suggested doubts to Mr Kenny as to some of the charges, but such items were not always reduced; satisfactory explanations were given, and they were passed, If ho had known some items had been charged for twice over he would not have passed the item, though it might have been explained that some charges were made against the client, and others against the estate. If he had known Mr Finn had charged a brief fee of £25 he would not allow a charge of £3OO for tho same work—at least not without argument, and satisfactory explanation. So on with the other cases. To Mr Bell: If y6u know that in the

same action a foe of £325 had been allowed to Mr Roes, would you have thought £125 a proper charge ? Witness : I think I remember something of the sort being brought before me at tho taxation. In reply to further questions on this point, witness said if Mr Rees' charges for similar work were a good deal more then Mr Finn’s, he would consider the latter’s f, a was not an unreasonable one in Mr Rees’ opinion. Mr Bell : If yon had known that Mr Ward’s costs in the Karamu amounted to £6,400. would it not have been an argument that, Mr Finn’s costs of £l,OOO were reasonable ? Yes. The bill alluded to had, he believed, been dealt with by his predecessor. Mr Bell: Had yon before you a bill of costs m the Karamn action alone, from Mr Ward (including Mr Rees’ charges), for a sum exceeding that which you allowed on the thr?e large items of Mr Finn’s, for a good deal of work besides that done in connection with tho Karamn action ? Mr Rees : Are you stating facts, or just asking tho witness ? Mr Bell: I am staling facts. Mr Reee: Well I say you are not. Mr Bell : I say the bill is here. Mr Rees : I sav the bill is not here. Mr Bell said Mr Rees had contradicted him on the previous day as to the number of folios in a bill, and he subsequently found he (Mr Bell) was mistaken as to the number, but the price charged had also been different. In reply to other questions witness said having the bill for £6,000 before him for the same brief, he would not consider Mr Finn’s smaller charge unreasonable. He did not p>ss any items for more than he considered reasonable.

Mr Bee? : Had you any means of knowing ihe respective work done by Mr Finn and Mr Ward in ihe Karamn action ? Witness : I don’t think I had. Mr Rees said no charge waa made directly or inferentially against the Registrar. J His Honor : Have you closed your csss? Mr Rees said he had closed his case, but he wished to point out that no charge of collusion waa made against the Registrar or Messrs Kenny and Watson. His Honor : Then I understand that is the plaintiff's case. Mr Dees: Yes. Messrs Conner and Bell said they did not propose to call any evidence Mr Bell said he did not think he would be entitled to waste the time of the Court in calling evidence, because they had nothing to reply to, and ha would ask His Honor to direct the jury to flad a verdiot on the issue. Mr Kanny, a public officer, had oome here at great inconvenience to himself and to the public to m'et charges which Mr Kanny and he (Mr Bel!) considered were allege] against him personally. His Honor: It appears to me that the words “ they instructed counsel to appear noir! isily ” would involve Mr Kenny and Mr Watson in the " conspiracy."

Mr Bril repeated that such it had appeared to him, and Mr Kenny had therefore oome at considerable inconvenience to meet the chargee and clear himself, and now it was staled nothing of the kind was intended. Mr Rees went on to argue the point as to whether an affidavit or oath was raqnired in the taxing of bills by the Registrar. Mr Rees said that several severe remarks had fallen from the Bench, and if he was right in h'S reading of the law in this matter the remarks were uncalled for, and he was perfectly right in alleging what he had done. Mr Cooper took up the argument from Ihe other side, saying that an affidavit or oa h was not neoissarr, though the person conducting 'he laxation could have required it before the Registrar. The general prac'be wa«, in other Supreme Courts, to require no affilavit. He would point out, too, that the Registrar’s decision was final, and could not be questioned. Mr B-ll also took tip the argument, twitting Mr Rees on his 11 unique experience." He contended lhat outside all law books, they had the universal practice to guide them, Mill he would submit that the point had nothing to do with tbe issue. His Honor : Mr Rees wants it to go to the jurv as showing improper taxation.

Mr R a es : Y- j s ; collusion, Mr Bell: Well, we admit it. He docs not charge the counsel with collusion, nor the Registrar, tha person who required evidence, of collusion ; and yet we are charged with collusion. Of collusion with whom ? It does not reach my mind. There was a little bantering hare between counsel, and then the matter was adjourned until after luncheon. On resuming, HU Honor ruled that it was not actually necessary to have an oath or affidavit.

Mr Rees addressed the jury on the case, noting that the plaintiff had been closely bound down as to the evidence to be oiven, but asking Hia Honor to direct them to find a verdict on the facts elicited. He drew attention tn the disappearance of the bills of costs for the first £3OOO, and also that though Mr Kenny wgs brought from Westport he had not brought with him the draft copy ha supposed he had, nor had tbe defence put that gentleman in the witness box. Mr Finn had at first said he thought the charges were reasonable. It was clear, he urged, that the trustees had been guilty of gro«s negligence in not pro. nerly supervising the accounts. Mr Bennett had said he had simply lookei at them, and told the taxing solicitors that he was not dissatisfied with ths work. Ths employment of the solicitors, ha urged, was shown by the evidence to be for no other object then to smooth the passage of th? bills and enable Mr Finn to get his costs. The taxers had done the work. It was admitted, in six hours iq which time they could not possibly do such work proper!v. Ha alluded to the large sum of money (£1 300), Mr Finn had in hand whan he had advised the borrowing of further money to nay costs. The evidence showed that Mr Finn had £3,300 of which he had given no account until this action was taken, and it was grave negligence for the trustees to permit of sush doings with a trust account. He submitted to them as unimpassioned map, viqwjag the whole circumstances, they woqlq be able to oomc to a decision on the specific facts. Mr Cooper rose to address the jury, saying:—l wish to detain you but for a shoyt time in making a few remarks on the evidence given in thia suit. In drawing yonr attention to the original question, you haya to find,—whether or not at this late hour counsel for the plaintiff choses to withdraw tho charges of fraud, it is practically clear paragraphs 17 and 18 of the statement of claim set out fraud and collusion. Therefore I would ask yon to deal with those paragraphs in which fraud—in which the whole matter is placed before you by the learned counsel for the plaintiff The issue appears in the words of the paragraph— Did the defendants, for the purpose of obtaining allocutor, instruct counsel to appear nominally on behalf of the defendant

trustees, but in reility to tike from the Registrar the responsibility as to the propriety of the amount being taxed, and also as to the performance of the work f That p ir.tgraph raises as clearly as possible tha issues of collusion, conspiracy, and fraud — collusion between the trustees and Finn'and Chrisp, and practically conspiracy and collusion between the gentlemen who appeared and were instructed to tax this bill of costa nnd the Regiatrir, and fraud on the part of Finn and Chrisp and Bennett. That is really the issue raised under that clause, and that is the finding Mr Rees wishes you to give. If you find in the affirmative—there is no good mincing matters, gentlemen—that is what you decide. Now, charges of conspiracy, fraud, and collusion such as made in this case, require proofvery strong proo’, indeed—and must be made out clearly. The difficulty myself and Mr Bell are in is to find out where theru is any evidence to hang a peg to substantiate anvone of these charges. Mr Rees has surmis'd certain things. He has asked you to infer certain things from some evidence which does not exist. I will venture tq submit to you, and the learned Judge will probably so direct you, that there is no evidence to support a. charge of collusion, conspiracy, or fraud. My learned friend says first of all Mr Bennett was negligent in his conduct of the office of trustee, in not examining these bills of costs, not going through item by item to saiisfy himself as to whether tho work had been done, and whether the charges were reasonable, and

not instructing Mr Kenny and Mr Watson to attack each item at the taxation. Now, first of all, supposing Mr Bennett had gone through these items—he says he did examine the bills cursorily—could he have given Mr Kenny any assistance ? He did what he ought to have done. He did not pay this bill of costs without enquiry—that would have been improper. He calls in an independent solicitor, well known among you all, he gives that bill of costs to the solicitor, with what I submit is a fair statement made by an honorable man. He said, a lot of work has been done by Mr Finn for this estate—we are not dissatisfied with the manner in which he has done that work, but we cannot judge as to the charges made, and we ask you to strike off any portion of those charges that is not reasonable. Mr Bennett’s statement was very different to the way in which Mr Rees had put it. He says, “ I gave general instructions that what he found too large he was to cut down, but as far as we know ihere has been a large amount of work done, and we have no reason to be dissatisfied/’ The taxing solicitor was told he should go through the account in the proper way s? that the estate might pay what was right and fair. It would be absurd for Mr Bennett to tell Mr Kenny what be wee to do in such a matter—it was for Mr Kenny to exercise his judgment and for ihe Registrar to use bis discretion in order to find wbat would be a justifiable allocator. Now, gentlemen, that is the beginning of the pcsi ion, and you wifi recollect that in Mr Rees' opening he charged Messrs Finn, Bennett, and Pitt, that there were fraudulent charges, exorbitant charges, charges for useless work, done to the knowledge of all the defendants, and that the defendants had conspired together—this was his opening—practically to hush up enquiry into these charges and to obtain an allocator, the judgment of the Registrar, by refusing to submit to the Registrar facts upon which he should come to a decision. If Mr Rees wi h draws that suggestion he withdraws any grounds upon which he can ask you for a verdict in bis favor. He says there is nothing to complain of where Mr Kenny and Mr Watson

are concerned, but if there is any impnta-iou it must also be against them. If those two gentlemen carried out their work in a manner which does not rrflect on their profession the taxation must therefore be a leal one—a taxation which Mr Greenwood says resulted in deductions and which took a considerab'e time. I fail, I admit, to discover tne case which the plaintiff claims tc put before you. He asks you to come to the conclusion that there has been co 1 fusion between Messrs

Finn, Bennett, and Pitr, and practically with Messrs Kenny and Watson. I fail to see how he can withdraw the imputations against one without withdrawing them against the whole. The first question is: Was this bill taxed for the purpose of benefiting any of the defendants? Now, you cannot come to that oonolusiou—the evidence not only does not support the co tent ion of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, but it absolute'y disproves his case. So far from the taxation being nominal it was shown to be a peal one, conducted properly, with enquiries made io the proper manner ; Mr Gteeawood’s ev — deuce shows that it was a substantial taxation. He says that documents sufficient to fill this side table were produced and gone through, and the items reduced where Ihe Registrar was eati-fied a reduction shou’d be made. The position taken up by the learned counsel for the other side places Mr Greenwood in the position of a puppet, that he sat there to sign a bill of costs ia cons quence of collusion come to between Messrs Bennett *nd Pino. As to Finn and Watson, you have it in evidence that they ac ua ly quarrel ed over the taxation, and Mr Finn had threatened to withdraw—as Mr Bell had put it, there was an “armed neutrality” between them, Dors that show collusion 1 Suppcs ing Mr Rees hud shown that for the taxation Messrs Watson and Kenny had been paid by Mr Finn it wou’d be different, but they wer e paid out of the estate, and yet Mr Rees seriously asks you to come to the conclusion that all this work was done for the benefit of Mr Fioc. Why, it seems almost absurd to take up your time with such a case. Why yu Mr Bennett going to put himself in the position of a fraudulent trustees to put hundreds of pounds in Mr Finn’s pocket? It is contrary to human nature. Mr Bennett did what any honorable man would have done in such a position. He said, “ I know nothing at all about it; I call jp an independent solicitor, give him the solicitor’s costs, and say tax th .t bill; I leave it to you to say whether the charges are fair or not.” [Mr Cooper then went into the question of affidavit, which his Honor said he would direct the jury wee not necessary/ I think you will agree with me when I say that Messrs Kenny and Watson and the Registrar of this Court are on trial, and that a verdict against the defendants on the first issue must practically, notwithstanding Mr Bees’ withdrawal, stamp all these gentlemen as being parties to fraud. No doubt you will find ihe last issue in favor of the defendants, and if that is so that determines the question of the prior issue. Upon the evidence submitted I think you will, without any hreitation, come to the conclusion that [fee taxation was a substantial one. Mr Bell addressed the jury, saving: I feel myself in the same difficulty as mv learned friend who has just sat down, and I assure you I should not ask His Honor for permission to address you after having heard ths case which learned counsel on the other side has submitted to you,had it not been that I feel the very grave and serious responsibility upon you in this particular ease—had it not been that the case IB of an important character, which renders it necessary to my client that I should say a tew words, I assure you I should not ask you even the very short time I am now indulging in. The plaint fTs counsel comes here and says he will show the defendant, have been gbilty of conduct whieh is fraudulent—they have joined others in that Wrong, disgrace and fraud. Lot them come here and prove tbemMtlves fq be honest men—that is the way he puts hi< argument—in thl- Court. I declare, gentlemen, I never heard in this or in any otter Couit, a charge of fraud made, pa--sisted in, carried even to the address at the last moment, without one shred or rag of ev.ience to rest on, except the argument to thb jury that the defendants are rogues until they are declared innocent. I declare it an insult to you, gentlemen, to ask you to find a verdict on what my friend suggested to you that you may surmise something not in evidence—you may give a verdict not in relation to the facts submitted to you, but on something else you may be led to suspect I “ You have heard th? witnesses," he .ays; •t t have not any witnesses except the men themselves, not one. I don't Want to put the plaintiff in 'he box—he was in Messrs Finn and Chrisp’s office, and might have been able to tell us something about it, but we will not let him go in tbe b x end be cross examined: l am not going to ask any information from him. As to how he allowed euch charges to be made—we'l I have got no other evidencs, what am I going to do ? I wjll have a special jury, put these gentlemen (witnesses) in the box one after another and see if I can’t get anything out of them, and if I can’t I am going to ask the special jury to give a verdict against them, not that I have proved them to be rogues but that they have not called a number of witnesses they might have called fo prove th»mselyoa to be honest, and that the

jury shall surmise, judge from something they have heard in the street and not in evidence in the box.” They ahau d now in direct defiance of their promi-e to decide upon the evidence, give a verdict not upon toe evidence; that I say is what is to bo submitted to you. There is not one word of

evidence—not one word - to support any allegations in these paragraphs. My [earned friend tunta to you and says, I do not put Mr Kenny in tbe box. He might na well have said Mr B-ll did not examine Mr Finn. Everybody, in the Court knew the reason why I did not. I stated it. If I had anything to meat I should have called witnesses; I had nothing to meet Tha issue was upon my 1< anted friend, and not upon a», and yet he tells ns you did not put Mr Kenny a"d Mr Watson in the box. Why did he not put fhem in the box ? He put Messrs Finn, Bennett, and Greenwood in the box—why did ne not get others ? ge called the gentlemen that were here without subpoenas. Let it appear to the jury as if the counsel for the defendants really thought that the issue was upon them, and let them call witnesses I—that is the way the case is presented to you. You are actu ally asked to surmise he hue got I something I am afraid of because I have hot put thorn in the bog. I say it is not l

worthy of my learned friend—it is not like himself. He suggests another reason why you should make surmises, because he says the result will only be a retaxation of the ccsts. This is a pretty argument to address to a special jury, that you are to disregard the evidence because it could not do any harm I If I were on the jury I would be very much surprised to have such an argument, addressed to tne. And then my learned friend e tys that this retaxation is required because this young man (Albert Karaitiana) has only just come of age. If be is entitled to a retaxation he can have it in another form. My learned friend says, ” Ido not know whether he will be entitled to it unless he puts this charge of fraud,” and he says—that is what he tells you frankly, “ I will come here, get a jury, and ask them to convict against tbe defendants of fraud. I have not got- evidence, not a witness, not a tittle of argument or evidence. If I can get anything out of the defendants, well and good ; if I cannot get those gentlemen to admit being a pack of rogues, well and good. I have still got a trump card up my sleeve, I will ask the jury to go upon something they might have heard in the street;” in other words tbe street is to be represented on the floor of the Court. Ido not fear the re suit. Ido not even say that. I put together any matter that is entrusted to me, and I endeavor, as far as possible, to confine myself to the point, and not to express any opinion as to the duty of the jury. When I say I have no doubt on this matter, I say it because the learned counsel simply admits he has got no evidence, and because it is beyond question that there is no evidence. Is it possible for my learned friend to turn round and say he has not made a charge against Messis Kenny and Watson? He says that each got £4O for & taxation when it was understood they were to pa.-s the bills and quietly pocket £4O wi haut doing anything ; if diit is not an allegation of a piece of as dishonest roguery a« you could make against any citizen, upon my word I do not understand the meaning of the English language. Is it because a min is

I a lawyer he is to be charged with taking £4O ? for doing nothing. lam aware of the repu- ! taliou they htve—but not amongst sensible men, bye because every sensible man trus’s I his lawyer and thereby shows bis confi lence |in him. The way it is suggested to you is that Mr Bennett paid these gentlemen out of a trust estate for doing nothing, yet they are pe» fectly honest I True, they were paid £4O each fordoing nothing, butthat is no charge I As for Mr Greenwood he was a mere dummy, set there to pass the work 1 Is that the meaning of the words ! Is counsel for the plaintiff going totake the sting out of it like that ! If he does what is the effect ? He is left in the most ridiculous position, more so than if he had continued his allegation to the end. He is left with the charge of conspiracy between Messrs Fjnn and Bennett, but it is perfectly useless so long as Mr Kenny and the Registrar do their duty. Now there are two positions. My learned friend siid when he drew the pleadings, “ the whole lot of you combined to rob the estate.” As to that the question is for you ; it is not for us to prove we ace honest—if so we have done it—it is for him to prove we are »ogu j s. Now he takes the position that Messrs Watson, Kenny, and the Registrar are honest men. Wh'at on earth could Mr Bennett and Mr Finn get by aueh a conspiracy provided Messrs Kenny and Watson and the Registrar were honest men ? That being the poei’ion I am content with tha verdict of twelve men on it. If the is-ue bad lain upon us we should have undertaken to prove our case to the satisfac’ion of the jury, and that could not have been done except by taking up a great deal of time. It would have been necessary to go ihrough the minute details of the legal work i.i connection with tbe estate, and afeo to take Mr Bennett through a l the details. But the issue is clear, and if you conti fered they had proved it by those paragraphs on that pap?r (the pleadings), I should very much like you to take up the position my learned fiiend takes an 1 then tell us upon what evidence you find such a verdict.

His Honor then summed up as follows:— Gentlemen of the jury,—When this case was commenced yesterday you had first read to you by counsel for the plain iff a long statement of claim, containing an immense number of charges against all the defendants, some against one some against others. Now, I could not stop Mr Lusk in reading that state ment became it was a part of the action, but at the same time counsel for the plaintiff must have known a very large portion of it was totally irrelevent. You have heard it mentioned in the course of this trial that the matter has already been before me sitting in Chambers in Auckland, and that a very large portion of the action was disposed of, that is to say all that portion of the action which makes charges against Bennett and Pitt with respect to their accounts, and claims that the accounts should be taken in a proper manner, and that some O'her person should be appointed trustee, All that has been done by my order at Auckland, and there could be no object, it appears to me in reading it, except to prejudice you against these defendants. The other part of the action is against the defendants, Finn and Ohrisp with relation to certain bills of cost, taxed by the Registrar here, some of them five years ago, have been taxed in a fraudulent manner, by collusion, and that therefore they should be taxed over again by gome other Registrar. That was a matter which I declined to deal with sitting as a Judge alone in Chambers, a matter which I told the parties at the time must be referred to the decision of a jury in open Court. After all these attempts to get in a great deal of evidence that is nothing tq do with the case now left for you to try, you are left to try a question whether on several taxations of Mr Finn’s bill of costs, the taxations were honest, or whether they are dishonest, therefore all that is left of the case for the present trial is the paragraphs seventeen and eighteen, the allegation in seventeen being that the defendants for the purpose of obtaining an allocatur from the Registrar of this Court, instructed counsel to appear ’‘nominally” on behalf of-the defendant trustees, but in reality to take from , the Registrar the responsibility of examining the items as to the propriety of the amounts charged, and the work performed. Jfow it is stated that the allegation is cnly against the trustees and Messrs Finn and Chrisp, or rather I should say against Mr Finn, for Mr Chrisp’s name has not been mentioned throughout the whole trial. Neither has Mr Pitt’s. These two gentlemen seem to be treated almost as though they had no existence in the matter, but it appears to me that it was impossible to read that paragraph without underpUndins that it included other persons besides the defendants, and in that I presume all the foqr defendants are inclqded. They instructed counsel to appear nominally. If they instructed counsel to appear nominally, then the counsel who appeared himself, must know

that he was to appear nominally—he must therefore have been a party to th) transaction by which the taxation of thebilla of costs was to be a sham, and yet now it is stated nothing t>f the kind is intended. The plaintiff says he did not intend to say Mr Kenny or Mr Wqtson was a party to" any speh transaction. They did not alter, or ask to alter, the statement in the pleadi?gB* In any case the R gistrar of this Court should not consider the responsibility of examining items so taken from him by tha fact of counsel. appearing on both tides, therefore ei>her he has been a party to the transaction, or the wording of the paragraph is meaningless as far aa he is concerned. This is a very grave charge, I know very little of this neighborhood, but I know the defendants, Messrs Bennett and Pitt an I Messrs Finn and Chrisp, have been in business here some considerable time, and the charge against them is such that it is almost of a ci min al charac : e r , and certainly requires to ba proved in the most distinct terms' I can say that if you come to ths conclusion that Bennett and Pitt on the one ejde and Finn and Chrfep on the other, actually did conspire together so that a considerable sum of money he was not entitled to should be put into Mr Finn’s pocket, and that trust money, it would be a most grave breach of trust on the part of Bennett and Pitt, such as would entirely dia*ntitfe them with re=pect to ih-ir fellow men, and with regard to the solicitors, tbe charge would be one which I think would be brought in shape which would I be ju(n to them, professionally and otherwise, because it would be conduct of the most

scandalous character on the part of solicitors who are officers of this Court. Therefore you must examine this case as careful as if it were a criminal charge, If it were a criminal charge, I think I should be bc-usd to direct you that you must acquit them. If it were a civil action brought in another way, I think I should be bound to say there was no evidence, but being brought »n the shape it is brought the question is left to you, and I think after all it is much more satisfactory that it should be left to you, for on a question of this kind, necessitating dishomsty and fraud, or the conti ary, the verdict of twelve intelligent men is of more value by far to the parties concerned than the verdict of 5 judge can be, even though that judge had much greeter experience than any of them. As to the alleged collusion with regard to tbe t axation of the bills of cost s, there is the evidence of two of the parties. You would be asked to look with suspicion on that evidence because they are defending themselves, although called by plaintiff. Mr Finn’s evidence was that he was asked to produce on taxation all the telegrams, documents, &c., and had produced his diary with regard to the times be had been away. He had not been on very good terms with Mr Kenny and with Mr Watson, but had a considerable quarrel over a taxation. He said he had produced a big pie of papers, but could not say'what Mr Kenny was paid for the taxation, that it was not a friendly taxation, and that he had no previous conversation with Bennett and Pitt. Then Mr Bennett said that lie had in some matters given Mr Finn special instructions, and that as to the journeys Mr Finn had never gone away without his knowledge. He knew there had been a great deal of work. He eaid he would not know whether the charges were fair if he had gone through them a dozen times. He gave Mr Kenny instructions to gothrough the accounts, and cut down anything that was unreasonable; the trustees had no cause to be dissaMsfi-d with the work done, but they could not be judges as to charges. He did not give the slightest suggestion to Mr Kenny that he was to favor Mr Finn in any way. Curious enough, in his examination in chief he was not asked as to what instructions he gave to Mr Watson. [Mr Rees : He said he did not. see him.j Then being reminded, he said Mr Watson hid come to him, and that he had replied he would be no wi?er if he had looked at the bill of costs a dozen times. Then we come to Mr Greenwood, who of course is not liable to the same doubt in his evidence, as in the case of Messrs Bennett and Finn, for it is admitted by tbe plaintiff, although I say their pleadings are not so clear as they might bo, that Mr Greenwood was not a party to this transaction, unless it was that he just sat by and let the parties argue it themselves. In opening his second speech, counsel for plaintiff dwelt for some time on some of these taxed bills of costs not being found,. You will not. I think, attach any importance to that, so far as the defendants are concerned. I am not aware that there is any rule requiring

any persons to preserve papers for ever. No doubt lawyers preserve nearly all the papers that come to their hands, because they never know when they will be wanted. Probably it was the last thing that occurred to Mr Bennett or Mr Finn, that these bills of costs, taxed in 1885, would be brought up for relaxation in 1890. It is certainly singular tbit ihe bill of costs is not among the Supreme Court reo r.ls. where there must certainly hive been a copy. If a copy were not found, he could not see how it could poisibly be retaxed. [Hfe Honor then quo'ed from Mr Greenwood’s evidence.] It does appear to me, —though I say it fe for you, and rot for me to j'ldg'—’hat ‘here ia ready no evidence, even it this was a very s’ight matter, and not such a grave charge. It has been contended that you may imagine circumstances, that you may put your own construction cn the evidence—read-it, as it were, between the lines. You might do that no doubt if there were anything in tho demeanor of the witnesses which led you to suppose they were not telling the truth. Now although Mr Bennett and Mr Finn were standing up to be examined on these charges by the counsel for the plaintiff, did it appear they were concealing anything, or avoiding anything, or in any way desiring to state whot was untrue? You are as good judges of witnesses’s demeanor as I can be, and I leave that to you. But you are now asked to suppose—although you have the positive evidence of three persons that there was nothing whatever in the shape cf collusion—you are asked to infer that there were other gentlemen in Court who. if they had been examined, would put a different impression on the case. It certainly a ikes me as peculiar— if you have ca’led three witnesses and they do not bear out your case—to say that there are other persons in Court who could have supported your case. It was not necessary for the defendant to call Messrs Kenny and to say they were no parties to fraud, because the counsel on the other side said “ I do nnt say there was any fraud on Kenny’s or Watson’s part, that there was fraud on Bennett and Finn’s part, and they have not called evidence they might have done.” That w®u!d be a very strange position to uphold. [ln conclusion His Honor again pressed upon the jury the extreme importance of ths enquiry they had to make, and submitted to them three issues ]

1, Did defendants obtain the services of two solfeltnrs to act nominally at taxation for the purpose of passing without question Mr Finn’s bills of costs ? 2, Where affidavits of increase filed at taxation ? Admitted by Mr Bell. 3, Was proof given that the work charged fox was done,.and were documenta produced to substantiate the charges made ? The jury returned in abcut half an hour, answering the first two issues in the affirmative, and the third in the negative, being a verdict for the defendants. There was a good deal of argument as to costs. His Honor eventually allowing them on a scale that it is estimated will amount nearly io £3OQ. Then cams argument as to whether Messrs Finn and Chrisp should, after the verdict, be released from the suit, further action being prob.ab’e on the comnfetinn of the investigation of accounts. His Honor was inalined to release them from the suit, but Mr Rees objected, and tha matter was left until yesterday morning, Then Mr Bell intimated that, the imputation having been made that Mr Finn had improperly used moneys of ths estate, he would prefer tc let the suit take its course. Counsel made it distinctly understood that it was not sought to connect Mr Chrisp with the case in any way, except that he was liable as a partner in the firm.

OTHER CASES. Argument has been taken between Mr Rees and Mr Bell (with Mr Nolan) in the cases Arapeta Potae v. A. G. Arthur, for prohibition re Tokomaru block, and J B. Poynter, Westrnp and others v. John Clark, claim £3OOO damage?, injunction accounts. In the former case judgment was reserved, and the latter comes on again this morning. A settlement was arrived at in the case of Wi Patarerewa v. Ihaka Whanga.

Mr Ebeling, an old Gisborne resident, passed, away yesterday, after ailing for some time. The deceased man has been in ths employ of Messrs Johnston and Co, for the last two or three years, and was well known. He leaves a vife and a large family.