MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2050, 29 November 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, NOViEMiBER 28. (Before Mr AA’- A. Barton, S.M.) Judgment by Default. —Mary Jleency (-Air A. T. Coleman) v. AViljliiam AATlkio, £l2, costs £1 18s 6d. ; Claim for Board.—Patrick Hofon '(Mr E. H. Mann) sued Marion AlcCredie (Afr Stock) for £6 6s for board and sundries.- —'Plaintiff stated float ho. let furnished rooms. In {March last nipt defendant, "who gave the nanre of Airs Liston. Defendant came to- plaintiff’s house with Diivid Liston, who said lie was her .husband, and two other men,' and asked if lie had any rooms empty. ■Told .defendant she could have the two front rooms for 12s a weeok or with lodging at £l. Defendant did not take the rooms at onco, bout on June 7th she took tho rooms with lodging at £l. A low days after she went into, the rooms defendant .told witness her name was .not Mrs. 'Liston land said it was something 'like McCredie. Defendant stayed six .weeks.. She left because witness refused to keep her after Liston refused to be "responsible - for her. When .die left she took an account, stating that she was going to Liston in the country. Defendant left a few articles of clothing at witness’s house. Wrote' to defendant once claiming for the amount. Saw defendant on Saturday last. {Asked for his money, but defendant said she would put the police on his track. To Mr Stock: Know defendant for. about six weeks before she came- to stay there. AVas not .continually at Airs Orpwood’s house and pestering defendant to come to live with him. Did not promise her a home as long as idle liked to live .with him. -Spoke to Detective Maddern regarding a complaint made by defendant that a gold ring, £2 in notes and some underclothing had jbecn stolen from her. Did not say to tlio detective that defendant could live with him as long as dhe Liked. Defendant never helped .witness’s wife in her housework so far as he knew. Jbe-examined : The .arrangement for the lodging was .made with defendant. Defendant came to live with him about a ‘moil,till after confinement. She was in a very wenlc stale. —For the defence Maria Orpwood, nurse, said defendant was attended by-tjier during her confinement. Plaintiff callled two or three times to sec defendant, and stated that .he was sorry for her and woidd give her a. home at his place. No mention was made of payment. Plaintiff appeared anxious for defendant'to -go to live with him. AAAitness did not turn defendant out. .To Air. Alann: After one of tho interviews between plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff said he biad another enquiry for his rooms. Parted with defendant on the best of terms, but on the Sunday after she left- there was some unpleasantness regarding some articles which defendant liad missed.—A. AX. Orpwood said he saw plaintiff at his (witness’s) house on June 2nd and atli. Plaintiff on one occasion said lio knew defendant had no money, but he said he would not see her stuck and would give her a . homo To. Air Stock: Ref refilled Lis_ memory regarding dates from a receipt (produced) for a gold ring which defendant had placed in liis wife’s hands for safe keeping. It was in the din-ing-room and not in defendant’s 'bedroom that plaintiff said lie would not {see defendant stuck. AVent one .evening to see plaintiff at- his house. His purpose was to ascertain who I would bo resxionsible for the account {for defendant’s confinement. Ayllion plaintiff told witness that Easton was not in town, did not say he would turn defendant cut. Re-ex-amined : Liston made himself responsible for the confinement (account. —(William Aladdern, detective, said that • about mid-winter had a .conversation with plaintiff and do-, fendant. Hofen said. Ml's. Orpwood liad a ring (belonging to defendant. Spoke to Air Orpwood on the matter; -and the parties later on settled it between tihemselv.es. Plaintiff said that defendant was, going to live with him as the Orpwood’s. Iliad turned her out. • -Was led to believe that plaintiff, offered defendant a homo aintil such time as she was well enough to go to work. The impression lie received was that .plaintiff intended to take defendant in out of chauity.—Alarion AlcC'redie said she did not go to ptaini'ltiff’s place before she left-. Orp•[wood’s to enquire about rooms. Did hot go at any time by. herself to plaintiff’s to ask about rooms. The first time slio asked about rooms was when dlie called with Liston. Never .arid anything at plaintiff’s house .about board or lodging- Plaintiff .visited her about June 2nd and ©add she could go to his. place and live as long as she liked. Plaintiff said his wife was starting a laundry and she and defendant could work it. Plaintiff know very well tliat she .Iliad no money. Did lj'bt want to leave Orpwood’s because the was very well treated there. Plaintiff sent a cab for her and she went to plaintiff’s house. Did all she cow'd to help plaintiff’s wife in her housework. Never asked plaintiff to buy .medicine. Plaintiff asked her if ihe wanted anything, but she. did not like to ask him for anything. Plaintiff bought pills for her and asked her to say nothing to lais wife. Left plaintiff ‘in the best feeling. 'Witness went to live in the country. Plaintiff did not give her an account when she left. The first rilie heard about payment Was when plaintiff wrote to the country to- her asking for money. To Air. Alann-: - Met phi inf (iff iirst at the ciul of' Alar*. AVoailt 'to plaintiff’s place because .plaintiff seemed to be a great friend of Liston. Would swear that Liston knew, plaintiff belofe- March. Liston told her he knew plaintiff. Left Oiiiiwood’s. on tho best-of terms. There was no friction regarding payment. Did not expect plaintiff •to ''stand for her on- Juno 7th. At the interview about June 2nd did not make any arrangement with plaintiff as to going to plaintiff s.

Never asked plaintiff to send a cab. —Tlio M.M. .in summing lip said the evidence was unsatisfactory. One witness raid there was an- arrangement to pay and a number of others said there was not. It was quite plain that one party or the other was committing deliberate perjury. In view of this judgment would be for defendant with costs.