SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1779, 18 June 1913, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

TRANSACTIONS IN A FAMILY. LOAN OE A GIFT? 'In the Supreme Court yesterday morning, his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard aa appeal from tho decision of Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in connection with ft family dispute as. to a gift of money. The appellants in the case were Joseph Edwards, settler, of Remuera, Auckland, and Maud Trout, married woman, of the same place. The respondent was Amy Louisa Nott, married woman, of Palmarston North. Mr. P. Levi appeared for tho appellants, while Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for tho respondent. It appeared that on July 27, 1910, tho appellant, Edwards, lent to Mrs. Nott (his daughter) a sum of .£l5O, to be repaid in Wo years. Later, Mrs. Nott went to Sydney. S'he lost monoy in business there, [fiid her daughter, who wasvthe favourite grandchild of the appellant, Edwards, contracted consumption. At tho request of her father (the appellant Edwards), Mrs. Nott brought her daughter back to New Zealand, and on her return to the Dominion, her father (so it was alleged) 1 forgave tho loan of £150 in order that Mrs. Nott might spend tho money for the benefit of her sick daughter's health. Subsequently, however, the debt was assigned to another daughter (Mrs. Trout), and an actiom was brought for recovery of the sum. Tlio Magistrate found that a gift had been made, and accordingly gave judgment for the defendant (Mrs. Nott). It was from this decision that plaintiffs (Joseph Edwards and Mrs. Nott) now apcertain argument liad boon heard yesterday, his Honour granted a!n adjournment to give counsel an opportunity of citing authorities on tho point as to •whether or not the money concerned was a loan or a gift. Judgment would be deferred until counsel had mentioned the matter again. \