C—2

50

followed up by a summons, so rapidly that the whole proceedings were completed within three months, and the fine inflicted for not having kept down the rabbits. That is an unprecedented thing, I submit, with regard to a run taken up for the first time, and smothered with rabbits as this was. The parties were fairly entitled to take into consideration that at least six months would elapse before proceedings were taken against a new man going into new country; and I might say (not that it appears on the evidence) that if there had not been a suspicion that Mr. Scott was not a bond fide purchaser, but was acting for the company, no such proceedings would have been taken. Mr. Chapman: That was not what they contemplated, because this rabbit terror was a thing they talked about. Mr. Haggitt: Not for this six months, but during the ten years. His Honour: They certainly contemplated that, at the end of six months, Scott would get rid of the run; so they were pretty sure about that. Mr. Haggitt: They were sure they would not, but they were pretty sure Scott would. His Honour : But they thought, notwithstanding, that, apparently, there was a risk Scott would have to bear of the rabbits. Mr. Haggitt: It was not a thing to be dreaded at all—not a thing which any previous knowledge of the ways of the Babbit Department would have given them any cause to suspect at all. But, however, that was the position of matters. Both parties thought the risk a very great deal less than it turned out to be; and that must be taken into consideration, I submit, in considering the arrangement on both sides. If Mr. Scott had known that he was liable to be popped into gaol without a moment's warning, no doubt he would never have gone into it; if the company had known that that was likely to be the case, no doubt they would never have asked him. Circumstances have developed in connection with the transaction which neither party contemplated at the time; and, therefore, I submit that to talk of the bargain made as being an absurd one, or a monstrous one, in the light of the circumstances which are now known, is a very different thing from considering the matter in the light in which the parties contemplated Scott's undertaking at the time he undertook it. Besides, your Honour, the company were not dealing with Mr. Scott as a man who, as my friend says, was making £500 a year—they were dealing with a man whom they had every reason to believe, out of his own mouth, was the man of straw my friend mentioned. According to Mr. Scott's statement to Mr. Henderson—according to his statement to Mr. Eitchie —Mr. Scott had nothing but his office-table and a couple of chairs—nothing that could be taken from him, if the worst came to the worst, except his office-table and a couple of chairs. Now, under these circumstances, there was nothing for Scott to lose; and, if bankruptcy was mentioned, which my learned friend seems to say never was, but which Sir B. Stout admitted was mentioned to Mr. Scott Mr. Chapman : I did not say it never was mentioned; Scott says it was mentioned at a subsequent date. Mr. Haggitt: Sir Eobert Stout said that when the necessity came for paying out the money Scott was to sail gracefully through the Bankruptcy Court; so that, apparently, Scott contemplated that course of proceeding from the commencement; but I submit that, on the statement of Scott himself to Mr. Henderson and to Mr. Eitchie, they had a right to consider that he was a man with nothing to lose, and therefore a man prepared to take such a risk as they were asking him to take. Mr. Scott, apparently, made no objection to be treated as a man of straw at the time. All that he was afraid of, apparently, was that the transaction was one that might involve him in some liability for making a false declaration, or something of that kind; he wanted to be satisfied that there was nothifig " crooked " about it—nothing he could be made criminally responsible for from the fact of applying for the run in the way he was asked to do. Now, my learned friend has said that one of his learned friends —he is now quite justified in saying both of them—had said that there was nothing morally wrong or legally wrong in this transaction. I submit there was not. The land was open to any person who chose to apply for it, and if two persons applied for the same run, then it was to be put up to auction as between the two persons who so applied. Anybody was at liberty to apply. There was no declaration required as to the purpose for which the run was to be used; no restrictions, certainly, that the person who made the application should be in a position to pay the rent he was bidding; nothing of that kind, and it was open to anybody who had previously put in an application for the land to bid for it at the auction. If, therefore, the parties were within the Land Act, I submit there was nothing immoral or illegal or wrong in the transaction. I am not bound to defend the thing on moral grounds at all, but, as my learned friend has challenged me to do so, I venture to assert that there is nothing immoral in anybody purchasing a run simply because they do not want it if the land-laws make no provisions against persons buying runs which they do not want; and all that can be said about the transaction is this : that Scott became the purchaser of a run which he did not want. My learned friend says that the defendants set up that Scott released them from the indemnity which otherwise he was entitled to. I say that the defendants set up nothing of the kind. That is not the defence set up at all. The defence set up is this : that Scott was not an agent at all; that Scott was a principal in the transaction ; that Scott was the purchaser of the run. He may have been persuaded into purchasing; he may have been deluded into purchasing i-t. However that may be, it does not matter; the fact remains, not that he was an agent in acquiring the run, but that he was the actual purchaser of the run in his own name for his own purposes, and not for the purposes of the company. lam speaking of this now—■ I shall have to refer to the letter presently—l am speaking of this now in meeting my learned friend's assertion that this bargain was monstrously and ridiculously absurd. I ask your Honour now to look at the reverse view—to take my learned friend's contention, founded upon Scott's assertions with regard to the matter, and see what a monstrous position, and what an absurdly ludicrous position, the company were putting themselves in. Here was Mr. Eitchie, for years acquainted with