MAGISTRATE’S COURT, HOKITIKA

Hokitika Guardian, 19 May 1917, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT, HOKITIKA

Friday, May 18. (Before T. Hutchison, Esq ,S,M.) Tbe Court sat at 10.25 a.tn. QLIAIM FOR MONEY LENT. Annio Radomski (Mr Crawford) v. James) Duncan (Mr. Sellers) claim for £3 cash lent. Plaintiff gave evidence that in July, 1016, she lent defendant £1 to go to Greymouth, and later the same sue wired’him a further £2. The loan had not been repaid to her. T’o Mr Sellers: Defendant was staying at Behan’s Hotel, Otlira, where she was employed. lie had affc various times given her money to look after for him. All the money he had given her had been repaid to. him. She had wired £2 to defendant’s mother, ouo had received altogether £7 from him. The balance after wiring the £2. to his mother she had repaid him in small instalments as he asked for it. This was" the case for plaintiff. For the . defence Mr Sellers called James Dyhcan, labourer, Otira, who said he was receiving 13s 6d per day wages. He had known Plaintiff Otira. She had at various times held £9 of his money. This amount had been taken from him by plaintiff when he was muddled with drink. She took it from him in the kitchen of the hotel. She took £5 from his June pay, and £4 in July. Plaintiff had told him she had wired £2 to liis mother for him. She had also given him £2 when he was going to Greymouth; and in answer to a telegram from him had wired him a further £2. The balance of the money had not been repaid to him. To Mr Crawford: He admitted than plaintiff was doing him a kindness in taking the money from liim when she did. She had told him about the £5, otherwise be would not have known. He knew she had taken the £4. James Beban, hotelkeeper, Otira, deposed that plaintiff had told him she bad £9 of defendant’s money. His Worship said lie believed the plaintiff’s statements and would give judgment for the amount claimed with costs. * A SOLICITOR’S CHARGES. A. D. D. Crawford v. August Krakowsky (Mr Park), claim for £2 alleged to have been promised to plaintiff by defendant in connection with the preparation of a lease from Westland Hospitals and Charitable Aid Board to defendant and liis partner.

The evidence of Mr Crawford was taken. He said than on 27th November, 1913, he was instructed to prepare a lease of the Aged Miners’ Reserve to A. Krakowsky and M. J. Boyle. When the defendants came to liis office to sign the lease, Mr Boyle objected to pay the fee that lie (plaintiff) asked. ~ His charge was £14 v and Mr Crawiora then agreed to take £9, but Mr Boyle still refused and offered £4. It was then agreed on his own proposal that they should refer the matter -to Mr Park for arbitration. Mr Park set the sum at £5 and the £5 was paid and a receipt given. In too meantime before the receipt was given, Mr Krakowsky, unknown to Mr Boyie, came to the plaintiff, and said that if he accepted the £3 now without further (trouble, he, personally, wouiu pay him £2 in a week or two. He had on sixteen or seventeen times written to Mr Krakowsky re the money and had never received an . answer. To Mr Park : He did not remember whether lie was a member of tlie Charitable Aid Board at the time or not. He did not on that day say m Mr Park’s office and in the latter a presence that lie would accept anything fill- Park would mention. In fairness to Mr Krakowsy he would that lie always acted fairly on the matter. It was the partner, who o rif that day raised the question of the cost of the lease. He judged the partner, Mr Boyle, to be a "muu nut.”. Mr Krakowsky and he were the bes,t of friends. He then asked defendant if that was not so. I don't know you much and never had much to do with you.” Mr Crawford. “Didn’t I teach your brother to play howls here on the local green, and didn’t I make him one of the best bowlers on the Coast.”

His Worship : ‘‘Surely Mr. Crawford you are not suaing this man,now because you taught his brother to play howls some time ago.” August Krakowsky said: He „ u « the defendant. He remembered 27th November, 1913. He and his partner, Mr Boyle, came to Hokitika on that date to sign tlie lease referred to in provious evidence. Neither he nor liis partner ever authorised Mr Crawford to prepare the lease. Tlie Secretary of the Charitable Aid Board wrote to him and told him that M*r Crawford liad the lease in hand. Mr Crawford then wrote him asking that he and h'is partner come to Hokitika to sign the lease. He corroborated the evidence of Mr Crawford as regards disputing the charge, referring matter to Mr Park and paying £5 as agreed. He absolutely denied over making a promise to Mr Crawford. He never spoke to the latter privately about tlie affair.. He* understood that- both parties agreed on £3 as a settlement. Ho saw tlie money paid and the receipt given and lie thought the affair was over. He again said that -he never made ainy promise, to Mr Crawford. Ho had received Mr Crawford’s letters hut took no notice of them. Mr Crawford had spoken to him in the street re the matter, but knowing tne account was paid in' full, lie took absoluely no notice'. Mr Crawford cross-examined tlie defendant but tho evidence remained unaltered.

Michael Boyle said: He was a settle]- residing at Donoglmes, two miles south of Boss. He was a partner witn Mr Krakowsky in the land leased from the Charitable Aid Board. He corroborated the evidence of Air Krakowsky, making special mention that Mr Crawford was never instructed by he or liis partner to prepare tlie lease and that again it was on Mr Crawford’s

own proposal that the matter was put before Mr Park. He thought £l4 a great deal too much for the work, besides he thought there were no need for a large number of the various clauses. He always believed in knowing the cost of a thing before he accepted it. It was the first time tnau lie had ever been called a “hard nut,' but on this occasion he did not tane exception in view of the fact from whom it came.

His Worship said personally he thought witness had no cause to complain there. He, himself,. liked to be look’d cn as a “hard nut.” Witness, continuing, said that as lar as he knew, Mr Krakowsky liad ntvu acted privately on the matter. The matter was a partnership and they both treated it as same. To his Worship: Three years <. b u was a long ime to remember, but no felt almost certain that on that day Mr Krakowsky was not out of liis company from the time they disputed the £l4 asked for until they , paid the £5 in settlement; so that he liad no time to make private promises or uu any business with anyone. Mir Crawford still persisted that the hadV been promised as before stated and a great deal of argument, and cross-examination took place, especially from the d'efcnce side. His Worship said the facts of the case were painful. Judgment would be for the defendant with, Court costs 2s, witnesses I2s lid and solicitor's fee £1 Is. <