SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 March 1923, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT HOKITIKA. TUESDAY, MARCH 20th. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Adams) His-Honour took his seat at 10 a.in. A DEFENDED (ASK \Y. J. Hansbury v. J. I’, llansbury, a claim for wages, and money lent, £613. (Continued). Thomas Wan less Bruce deposed ho was secretary of the Westland Hospital Hoard. Ho knew the wife of plaintiff She was an inmate of Hess Hospital and her father paid tin* account Luma in lona lice on I.6th June 1020. Palintilf recalled:—He produced sewing machine receipt for £2l 12* which was bis wife’s. It was bought v. i money received as wedding presents. The horse in the settlement was to replan- a horse sold. The tip-dray and harness was bis own. in replacement ol what be bad brought in. The horse Prince wa s bought by witness and sold by bis brother, the money being paid into the joint account.

Mr .Murdoch asked for production of beoks. Counsel handed in two daybooks and batik books. Mr Murdocli asked for the two ledger.-, wbicb were not supplied. Witness continued:—Ho sold on l()t.u dune. I!)2(>. to T. O’Neill. Id sheep for rs’O os. This amount was paid into bis brother’s account. Titov were witness’ sheep, and lie had rot no credit for same. Witness thought the payment for suits was part id the keep, and his hrothor knew of it and approved, when the settlement was made. Cross-examined —A uy surplus ot money over from sale of stock, was paid into the account. Elizabeth Hanshnry deposed she wits the wife of plaintiff and lived at lioss. lieinemhered on her wedding day her husband told her Ids brother Jack had .riven him £25 as a wedding present. Other wedding gifts ol money v.eie paid into the bank and later a sewing machine was bought out ol Me moiicv as a u adding present. V ttness d.-vriC-ed the dispute between the two blethers over working on Sundays. < n ' later date heard defendant te l plain till' that he was no partner. Her husband was very much surprised and veil *,i, ,r rv Mr Frank Haddock va- pii's. ,'V She h‘'ard the defendant advise her husband to take wages. Defendant , M -d to come to the bouse and discus wiH, her husband the prmrs tor contracts and work. Heard defendant sa.. her husband was worth to him _lO -» "'•ro'Mr Patterson-She was present ptddoek jm partner lor n period up to 1910 with defendant. Knew plaintiff. was wo, k ; g with defendant. Considered £ ■ week and keep ft fair payment to tn or •On May 28th 1922 beard defendant tell plaintiff he was no. p £ ner and had best take wages, lht. the defendant’s suggest>o . , To Mr Patterson— M ben htn.t . . . 1,., paid drivers about £4 r?-V drivers that witness J h _ Harry Arnold deposed J^-; Wes in man at lioss. He ‘. iqoo when November or Decembe «--• 1 ;UK , plaintiff went to get son e 1. defendant told bun to ’ P l»lsinIK rwoJrU hours, including ■J t to the right to call rebutting ev>icnw if ftocossavy,

Air Patterson raised a non-suit point that no arrangement was made for payment of wages. His Honour said he could not allow the point raised. John Patrick Hanhury deposed he was the defendant and was a carrier lesiding at Ross. When his brother went to the war there were practically no arrangements. He agreed to look after the farm. At that time there ■vere 21 ewes 11 lambs, 1 ram, 10 grown cattle, 10 calves. In the meantime l>otight a farm of 100 acres and a quantity of stock and sent in the mturns in the name ol plaintiff. Plaintiff wont into camp in August 1916. Witness bought 40 ewes and about 20 sheep from the Belgian fund. All the stock was branded with his brother s brand. During the war made no profit on the farm. Atonoy from any stock sold went into witness’ account. W hen bis brother c-ame home from the wni, witness promised to help him. and , plaintiff suggested a motor business and j negotiated a. loan. Witness did not ask , plaintiff to work for him. He was just filling in time till lie got some business I started. Then plaintiff got a loan and arranged to buy a ear to run on the south road. Witness assisted, and put in a. deposit of £SO for the car. After enquiry, the deposit was forfeited. The bridges did not get on and we did not go on with the business. After that we were thinking ot going into a motor business company. Witness and hi.--brother put their deeds into the bank, but tlie roads were not suitable, and tile business was dropped and loan paid back. Meantime bis brother kept on v. itli witness, who paid all expenses. No arrangement was made about payment. What money his brother had he put into witness’ account to help to cover the necessary amount required-for the! ear purchase. At this time witness’ ' Imnk posit ion was sat isfai lory, without i the money paid in by hi* biotlirr. In Feb. !!)2l) lie did not ask his brother to pay in his. insurance money. The j question of a partnership never crossed his mind til! his brother mentioned it, i in May 1922. Witness denied lii.s ; luotlier was a partner and his brother j •said lie wanted payment for what he had done. They could go later into details and be would treat him fairly, and give him a fair thing. Witness, used to give plaintiff whatever money i he required in cash or cheques. In -■lay 1922 lip told his brother find they would work out a lump sum. They discussed £5 a week and keep and £7 a week and keep and to work it out and see what it came to. In July his brother worked out the figures, and agreed at £760. Witness accepted these figures to wipe out everything to that date. Witness gave a cheque for £3OO, and was to pay 1*460 later when lie could meet it. lie told Itis brother to get the deeds transferred, hut nothing was done. Then he received a letter from plaintiff”,s lawyer submitting a different account which lie refused to pay, because it was not Lin- account j agreed upon, lie did not see a transfer that was stated to have been presented j to him. He was willing at any time to ; complete the agreement .reached m ; July. There was a dozen cattle that iie j retained about last ’Xmas, they dis- 1 appeared and he later saw some of them on his brother's farm. In October : 1920 when bis brother was getting mar- j tied lie said lie wanted some money and ! he gave him a cheque for £65. On the I morning of his brother's wedding he j gave him another £25 to pay for ni-> wife’s hospital account. He gave ni;:i money whenever he wanted it. )mi might iu well say il was all a matter ~| i a gift all the time. The sawing mm b- I

ine was paid mil of the account of v, ituoss. It was the first he had heard of the payment of v.,-,filing gifts into In-, in-count.

i'o Mr Murdoch -The C 25 cheque given on the morning of his brother's wedding was not a gift, li was to pay for the hospital account of his wife, lie did not hear his brother tell hi- wife i hat he iwilnessl had giv- : eii him C 25 as a wedding present, lie j could not understand or explain why j his brother should say that he wanted i Hie money .to j ay this debt, when as wa* slated this morning that the debt j had been already paid by her lather. When he gave id- brother 965 lor wedding expenses he did not g( l any j acknowledgement. He trusted Ids, brother and would have given him twice . as much if he had asked tor it. Sis of Hie eaitle claimed lor were sold L.i witness by lie In other, and were taken L> his own iarin. Of the 26 cat lie in the statement, it should bo Is. and of these 6 were not paid for • hy defendant to bis lirotber. On Dee.. 27 met Constable Kennedy at the sia- ; tion and asked him lo go to bis brother j and nsk him il be bad removed any stock from witness’s land. He con-| sidored hi- brother should have return- j ed the -beep when the agreement was j not completed. The cattle was the only j stock removed. The sheep and lambs j were on his brother’s property. In the settlement, witness gave hi-. brother all the cattle and sheep. He had written the reply to the request of Park and Murdoch for payment, when heated and angry, at Ids brother going back on the agreement tliev had come to together. Counsel referred to the pleadings m the amended statement of claim and pointed out the total opposite of the

statements by witness. Witness continued —The ’agreement signed hv his brother was produced. Tho amount £761) was agreed on alter considerable di-ciission, which extended over weeks. He always admired his 111-other’s work and told him that be was worth CIO a week. He would a-'-ree lo am- amount that His Honor *7.,i o d If ‘his brother claimed 27 a week and keep to Ist Nov.. H-20, be WO 11 Id take that estimate.

AFTERNOON SITTING. Tee Court resumed at 2 pm. HANSBURY V. HANSBURY. 'il-.. defendant’s ease wa- closed. THE JUDGMENT. His Honor referred at some length t„ the evidence in the course ol vvlne i he stated that he accepted the doieiKlin’s attitude in the witness box but the documents put before: him were a clear repudiation of the claim, and lott the plaintiff no other course but to take action. His Honor gave judgment tor plaintiff for £450, with interest, at S per cent from 31st October, 1922 to date, with costs of action according to scale and witnesses disbursements with allowance to counsel for second day appearance of 2*lo 10s. | On the counter claim .tudgmuu would also be for plaintiff with cost ot disbursements. 11 is Honor in a further reference exnressed his regret at the estrangement between the two brothers and it would he better if when this was all settlec they agreed to shake bands and forget the past. i