A Strange Case.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 665, 29 September 1891, Page 2

A Strange Case.

Tns case of Paramene One One and Hotene te Ruri v. Ward and others, tried in Napier, was a very remarkable one. The action was brought to restrain proceedings to recover on two promissory notes of £lOOO each, and to have certain documents cancelled, According to the statement of Mr Bell, counsel for plaintiffs. Ward in 1885 was inrt ucted to take proceedings with regard to the Karamu Block, and until the end of 1888 he had acted as their solicitor. The plaintiffs were entirely in the hands of Ward up to this time, and never had an inderen’ent legal adviser. In Sep.amber, 1888. Ward got Hotene to give him a P.N. for £lOOO, and in October from Paramsr.e also for a like sum. In 1890 Ward assigned to Laso lisa all moneys recoverable by Ward from the plaintiffs upon certain trusts, and in March, 1891, Lascelles commenced the actions upon the PN'i against Paramene and Hotene, and then for the first time these two natives took independent legal advice as to their position. Now, Ward got fmm the plaintiffs altogether—a P.N. for £5OO, land to ths extent of 150 acres valued at £3O per acre, the som of £l6OO out of rte first taxation, and £7OO on the second taxation ; he bad £2250 from the estate fund, and the other P.N.’e, making a total of considerably over £lO 000. One bill rendered totalled uo ihe respectable sum of £6398, and Mr Bell thus explained how it was made up Scarcely anything was paid out of pocket. The whole of this -unrmous bill was a o'aim for profit costs. It contained soma extraordinary items. For instanoe, there was a line “ Retainer to Mt Ward, 52 guineas I" He then proceeded to charge fifteen, eighteen, and twenty-five guineas for reading the deeds. In another line was “ Reading and perusing, three onlneas,” Then there was * ‘ Engrossing deed. £25: perusing the engrossment, £25." This, too, after he had already charged for drawing it up. Then he charged for hie own legal education, tor there appeared the item : " Perusing authorities in law case, £lO 10s " When be looked over the papers again he charged another £l5 15". There was £7B 15s charged for taking Instructions for brief; then he charged an additional £125 for drawing up the brief I He (Mr Bell) believed that the profession wee ashamed of this matter, for there could be no doubt but tbat it was a standing disgrace to them. After the evidence had bean taken, and argument by counsel, His Honor said there was no advantage to be gained by reserving this question for consideration, as it was not necessary to rely upon authorities. It appeared to him, as far as Mr Lascelles wag concerned, that he was possessed of all knowledge in connection with the whole of the transaction ; his opinion was, although it had been asserted to the contrary, that he knew all tbat the principal (Ward) knew. If he had neglected caution when he took ths P N's it was a ease of gross carelessness. But it appeared to hi-n that he knew everything concerned with the Karamn case and bill of costs when he took the notes. He had said before, and he would say again, that the bill of costs was simply indescribable, and he thought that under all the circumstances M r Lascelles was in the same position as Mr Ward. He would grant an injunction with respect to the P.N.’s held by Lascelles and order their cancellation, on the ground that they had peen Iniproperly obtained by Ward.