22

C—2

had been done. Mr. Eitchie is the general manager, and does not know all the minute details in the office. Mr. Eitchie told the manager at Dunedin to arrange the matter. Sir B. Stout: That is not evidence. Mr. Solomon : After his conversation with Mr. Scott, and from his subsequent communication with the manager at Dunedin (Mr. Henderson), Mr. Eitchie believed that the money had been paid ; and that was the cause of the dreadful untruth my friend relies upon as showing that Mr. Eitchie is not to be believed. Sir B. Stout: I did not rely on that alone. Mr. Solomon : I heard nothing else. Sir B. Stout: I said, if he wished to say that his letter to the manager is false ■ Mr. Solomon : Ido not think I should be interrupted. The statement was that, if it came to be a question of reliability, your Honour must disbelieve Mr. Eitchie, because he said in that telegram the money was paid, whereas as a fact it was not paid. His Honour: Well, Sir Eobert Stout also referred to the letter to the manager, and relied mainly on the letter. Mr. Solomon : I understood my learned friend to rely that that letter corroborated their view of the case. Sir B. Stout: Yes; if it was true. Mr. Solomon : But I understood my learned friend to say that Mr. Eitchie was untrustworthy, because he made a statement which we admit in our pleadings to be untrue—that is, we do admit the statement was incorrect, but 1 have little doubt your Honour will see that Mr. Eitchie had every reason to believe the statement he then made. He had no means of verifying it, but he had every reason to believe what he stated in his telegram was quite correct. All we say, your Honour, is this : We say the object of the National Mortgage Company was clear; that the object they had in view in employing Mr. Scott would have been frustrated and put an end to if the express arrangement, which is quite collateral and co-extensive with the implied arrangement, had been made. It is not necessary there should be this express arrangement, because the implied agreement to indemnify is the one alleged to have been expressly made. But I say that if the arrangement was that Mr. Scott was to be employed as their agent in purchasing the run, and the run was really their purchase and not his, that the very object for which they employed Scott would have been frustrated, and there could have been no reason in the world why they should have done this sort of thing. And we further say that in a case of this sort, where there will be a clean and distinct issue of fact between the two parties, the Court cannot exercise its discretion in finding that a trust is established under such circumstances as these, and, even supposing it could, there must be something more than a mere balance of testimony—it must be established by clear and distinct evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, that such a trust has been established before the Court will find that it is so. John Macfaklane Eitchie, General Manager of the National Mortgage and Agency Company (Limited), examined. 458. Mr. Haggitt.] Mr. Henderson is your manager in Dunedin?—Yes. 459. Had you any interest, or had your company any interest, in the sale of Eun 93a?—Our company had an interest by foreclosure as mortgagee about the end of 1889. We had been in possession up to the close of the old lease, and we had had a temporary arrangement for twelve months with the Government for the occupation of the run, which brought it down to 1891. 460. This run was offered for sale again in January, 1891 ?—Yes. 461. With some additional country added ? —Yes. 462. And at that time you had the stock on the country you had taken over from the mortgagor ? —Yes. 463. And that stock comprised what ?—About eight hundred head of cattle, and some horses— sixty or seventy horses —and about five thousand five hundred sheep (wethers). 464. And we may take it that it did not suit you to remove those sheep immediately ?—Wβ had not sufficient time. 465. Well, at a moment's notice, it did not suit you?—No, it would take probably some weeks to muster the cattle. 466. What did you do under those circumstances ?—When we found that the run was to be put up for sale, and that it was uncertain whether we could make any arrangement either with the Government or with the possible incoming tenant for the use of the country for a sufficient time to muster the stock, I had. a discussion —somewhere about the 25th or the 28th of February— with Mr. Henderson as to the best course to pursue. I represented 467. Well, that is not evidence; do not tell us what took place between you and Mr. Henderson; but it resulted in ? —lt resulted in my coming to the conclusion Sir B. Stout: That is not evidence. 468. Mr. Haggitt: Did you do something ? —The result of the whole thing was Sir B. Stout: That is not evidence. Witness : I do not know exactly how to put it. Sir B. Stout: Mr. Haggitt knows how to put it. He can put the questions. 469. Mr. Haggitt.] It resulted in Mr. Scott being sent for to see you ?—Yes. 470. Now, when did you have your interview with Mr. Scott ? —I think, either on the 26th or the 27th of February. 471. The 27th is the date of your telegram?— That would be the same date. I have no notes of it, but I believe that was the day. 472. What time was it when Mr. Scott came to see you?—l think it was the afternoon, but I am not quite sure.