A SINGULAR ACTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1639, 18 August 1887, Page 3

A SINGULAR ACTION.

An action, which was not of an nn> common nature, bat which contained tome very peculiar facts, is being heard is Melbourne before Mr Justice Williams. Mri Jessie Stringer, of Sydney, widow, leeks to recover from the execntora of her deceased aon, George Hecry Stringer, the turn of £1,858, which sh« said she had lent to him. She said she advanced him £158 m April, 1886, and gave him on 3rd November £1000 to be invested for her In the Bank of Australasia, Bank of New Booth Wales, London Chartered Bank, and Bank of Victoria, m Melbourne, whioh he did for twelve months at 6 per cent, but m his own name. __ Next day she lent him £700. Be died m < 'January, 1887, and the now claimed on j his eitate for the money. She prodnoed certain entries and receipts, which she •aid were m his writing and had his signature attached, by whioh the receipt or the money was acknowledged by him. It was alleged for the dafendauts that these were forgeries, and that the money bid been given by the plaintiff to the deceased, who was her only son. M™ Stringer said she was housekeeper to Mr Board, of Sydney, and that she got very large sums of money from him ; that he was seventy-six, and a very rich man ; and that he had given her about £1,700. She would not answer any more questions Mto that. It is somewhat ouriooa that * Mrc Jessie Stringer, housekeeper to a Mr Gregory Board, of Sydney, an old nun and a very rich one, was oommlitid for trial on Bth July, for shooting at one A. O. Board (a son of Gregory Board) on the 3rd July, and it now on ball to appear m Sydney on this charge on the 2nd August. The defendants brought some evidence to show tbat the entries relied on were forgerlf*, when his Honor said he was satisfied they were not genuine. The widow of the deceased and her mother fend sister swore to statements by the plaintiff that she had given about £1500 to her son. At the Sydney quarter sapiens, on August 4, Jessie Stringer was convioted of having, on Sunday, July 3, fired at Alfred Board with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, and was sentenced to two years' light labor. The case for the prosecution was that the prcseootor'B father, a feeble old man of considerable means, had lived m Brisbane street for the past cii yean, wnb the prisoner as his housekeeper. On the day m question the prosecutor called to sea hit father, and at sight of the younger Board the prisoner became so enraged tbat she threatened his life, and weund up by discharging the contents of three chambers of a revolver at him. This took place In the yard, whilst the elder Board was iv the kitchen garden. The prisoner denied to the police that she had fired a revolver, or ever owned one, but on the premises being searohed one was found at the bottom of an old well. The motive Imputed to the prisoner by the provecution was tbat she was anxious to cut off all communication between the alder Board and the members of his family, fearing that they might influer.ee the disposal of his property to her prejudice. ■ .