Monckton v. Brown.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 30 August 1911, Page 3

Monckton v. Brown.

EVIDENCE BY PLALVLW AND

DJOI'MONDANT

At tin* liwirinijc ot the ease .Monclcton v. JJyron Brown at tho SupuMiie Court, j'almcrstoii North, on Tuesday, ALrs Stra.wbridgo was called to show that her husband's bill to Brown was endorsed by plaintilL W S Jionnott. manager DaJgoty and Co., Otaki, deposed that plaintiff was a client since 1906. His credit .stood iirst-class with Dalgety's. AVitncss produced a, letter <lnted l-(5-11. from defendant to Dnligcty and Co. in rel'eronw to remarks being passed by defendant on plaintiff, and stating that tln> defeaicbnt had heard the plaintiff was issuing a writ, and ii lie did not soon do it delV-ndniil hinisell' would fake one ■out against plaintiff. i James .Mclntosli late manager ■Dnltfety and "0., Wellington, deposed that, plaintiffs account with the firm was good. Miss L. M. iScelins. matron Otaki Hospital, deposed that Mr Strawbridge, who recently died in tihe hospital with a broken spine, suffered fearfully, both in 'body and head, and had to have morphia.administered. Saw him when examined for evidence anil he was far from well. To Iris Honour : The man was cjuite sane, but had illusions at times. A THREATENED SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER. Charles Henry Williams, plumber, Otaki, deposed to having done big business with plaintiff—to u matter of about £900. He had been plumbing and contracting lor him oil' and on since 1903. Never .had any trovVblc to got liis money, hub wai often asked if be was wanting the money.

To ■Mα , Blair: Defendant was trying to got 'him out of his church, and when witness wont out defendant would go in. "Witness had been a. Sunday School teacher in t'lio Wesleyan Church for 10 years. 0. Hartmann ma.nager Bank of Australasia, Otaki deposed" that plaintiff's account had always been oil right. Xever had a cheque dishonoured, and was never short of monov *is far as witness know.

To'Mr Blair: 11 plaintiff r.equirod an overdraft he- eon Id get <>uo up t-o £200 at present. In the middle of last year it would ho about ,I'2oo overdraft allowed plaintiff, and when the amount came, to £'200 witness was to call plaintiff's attention to it. At one time plaintiff overdrew £450. Thei» was no .security gnven. Plaintiff asked once for a special loan on the security of hi* wifoAs annuity, hut no biisinosp resulted, because, according to the Marriage Act. the wife's annuity wa.s no security. To Mr Morison : I'hiiuiiff always replenished tne over-draft when '■asked. Would have honoured all his chef|ues. 0. A. W. Moiickton. farmer, Otaki. depes<>d that lie endorsr-d a hill to defendant for his manager, Strawbridge. on September •'s. 1910. Witness made up Strawbringp's statement of accounts produced up to June. 1909. Cheques produced, liy Straw bridge, showed that he had been paid his wages, be- ' fore \\ itne-s endorsed the i.'ill. One bill of Smwhridge's I'nr CI "J was paid by plaintiff for Strawbridge. Strawbrirlge- a-kt :1 plaintiff t" endorse a bill hi Briwn an.'l lie d : d so. Strawbridge was n, vvr much in eredit. He was <vm thi , ! - t7'> -an-1 allowances per y:'°.r. while we"king for plaintilf. and h A '".i whi!- in plaintiff's emphv. .lust prior tf> his being hurt '.vif'PM raise'! bis salary to CIOO i>er invnin r".:l wliile he was ill paid for his nninten.-uifv and the operation, lies--'. prmn r h'<~ wages up to the timi l oi ,! e:iHi. The bill endorsed for C'2l. AViiin , - did'not seek the caudidafMn , for j!;e Otaki seat, it was loir;;! on iiim. but he was now a willing candidate. Xo bills were renewed for ins ovrn accomnrodaticii. Never paid ■any discount. Could only i .-:iii : ;iber endorsing two bills for ~ '. It was ab.s.-diite-ly false ili.-ii h> , -wni. into Brown's ollicc and iu'ggfd and pra.yed for him to renew ilie bill. The last hill was dis!i.:i;M.i'-. ! without witness know in , /, and h ,4 immediately, on bearing the ImHs. paid for it by cucipie. St.raiv bridge (!ied in October, I!) 10. As s. on as v:'.l n-s----heard the rumours he went straight. to Mr Morri-o.n. his -oli.-it iv. Tliev were all over the district long beioro witness hear! them. a<kefi Brown for a bill. tia.l ini ••i-■ t« paid U'p himwlf l-.u! c(.i;!<! :i ! vmvs pay up all he owrd. to Mr Blair: Kndoised ibe I.'ill to oblige Straw'-: :d- •. 1-i ! nor n , - ceive notice of ili^iumoiir-. d nromjssoiy notes, except the !a-i <ii!e. Was certain that be <'i-' i l -"! call m< !?•:•■>■ ■; a day oi , two prenyls i<> i/'n- K'-st bill coming due on the promi'-- vy note business. .Might have ge-ie in to pay a s-.u;'!! :icc-.mt <,f nvi, but not having his elieijnc book v.'ith him could not do w>. as Brown could not lend >a cheque form mi his book. Could always nay for .the bills. Straw-bridge askod him to endorse the last iiill. wliich he did before the accident. The bill was not filled, in with the date and if was handed to Byron Brown without the date filled in. Plaintiff then receiver] '.a letter from defendant, stating tliat tine. I\X. had been referred to defendants' bankers. Sl.rnwbrkkv was indebted in -nnmtiif when death occurred. It aas quite likely that Strawbridgo would make up a statement showing thnt, plaintiff owed him £32 for tnavllinir expenses. He was always pai- 1 tr:-'-piling expenses when on 'plaintiffs wc'k. but Slrawid'idg'O' used to travel fo all the shows with bis own !mr- >. and wanted plaintiff t:> p'l.v tlw expensos. Mrs Strawbridge has mnde npp'ifi'tion for adtiit.ion.al wa<iTs for Si rnwhridqp. First hoard of the bowling fro en affair about one month prior tn i'hc of the writ. (Fuid'her evidence i'> tbe d-o will appear to-morinw.)