SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 March 1923, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT HOKITIKA. ! I MONDAY. March 19th. (Before 11 is Honour Mr Justice Adams) ; Mis Honour took his seat at 10.5 , a.m. i A DEFENDED CASH. \V. .1. Hanshury v. ,1. P. Hansliury a claim for wages, find money lent. £oßi. ] Mr Park with him Air .Murdoch appeared for pliant iff and Air Patterson lor defendant. Counsel agreed that the judge deal with the ease, and tile services of a jury were dispensed with. Air Murdoch said this was a ease between two brothers, William J. Ilansbury (plaintiff) and John Patrick Hansbnrv (defendant), involving a dispute between the parties as to the payments due arising out of the employment of the plaintiff with defendant. William Joseph [Jaiisbury deposed he was a eontraetor of Ross. Defendant was his brother. In 1911. witness houghL off his brothers and sisters their right to land at Totara. also all live stock. Defendant and witness worked together on contract and wages. The money earned paid expenses and up keen of house. Then in 1914 entered into contract for cartage of goods from Ross railway station to Ross. For convenience the contract was put in defendant's name. Witness worked on tin' farm, and also on contract. All money from Ixith was put in J. P. 1 laiishiiry’s hanking account as a convenience. In 1915 had most of 1 1 is meals at City Hotel Ross with his brother, who paid for some, fn 101 paid, at

his brother's reipiest. £(!0. his brother having already paid away in the business a similar amount. His brother in Rio I admiHed this a total of money lent of £2iJU. In August 191. A went to the war. Had stock at that time of bid sheep, 30 cattle, and 2 horses, which was left in his brother's ( barge, and lie promo ed | ( , look after them. Was, away nearly lour years returning in April 1919. On return drove to llari Mali with his brother and spoke of the business. His brother said be bad been in hospital for some time and business bad net been too good. Thai be had renewed the mail contract in his own name, lie asked witness to start work

H H

again where lie leit off before the war and go halves in the whole concern. All money for sale of stock of witness had been put into bis brother's account. A\ it ness agreed to start work with him ■' cnee. Continued til! July 1922. In P'!9 paid into his brother's account at bis reipiest £IOO. fi was witness’ accumulated hack nay. In 1920 paid to his account another £IOO which was hi, insurance on witness’ house at Totara that was burnt down. Witness worked very long hours from 1919. Soinet:me- from A a.m. to 10 p.m. While they had the mail if was nuess.'iry to work on Sundays. When the mail con tract ceased it was not neeessarc on a Sunday, lie brother alwev , made a practice of working on a Sundae. Witness objected to work on a Sunday and words billowed between them, and they agreed to have a squaring up when the. bank-, were made up. In May [922. defendant and Frank Haddock came to the house ol witness. Discussing in-come-tax returns, when asked to put in partnership .his brother said witness v. a'- IV. partner lb. i bad !., .i(.-.l word'-, and hi- brothei ml'r-etl him Ihe easiest way was ip lake wages ami have a setlieiui lit. l ater, again discussed the silkieet and lii.s brother said lie was Ivor!h CIO a week. Witness said he would accept (:7 and keep for himself and wife. This was for the period. •April 1919 onwards. On July 31 ■ i 1922 iiis brother and witness agreed that tile rate of nay should he £7 a week while single and Itecp (April Ist, 1919 to |..f November 19:10), al-o £5 per week (Nov Nt. 1920 to 17fii lid'- 192:.’) and keep for -ill and wife. Witness was) to receive £2.r* ca-h hull. Wi.m-.sj was to credit defendant with .CM.'it) for j (ei- paid for mu of joint. ! mid. Witness also agreed to transfer intere-t in laud known as Fords, on receipt of money. He gave a cheque for CoeO and witness gave three months to |Vis the balance. After expiry of three months and payment was not made, asked hi• broiler when lie would pay. Heated words followed, and his brother said lie

word- followed, and hi- brotber said lie would pay when he lilted and if witness was not civil would not pay at all. 11. Arnold was present at the time. Then consulted his solicitor to apply for payment and received a letter from him (produced). On Mist July 1922. he mad. the notes in the pocket hook produced. at the time his brother was present. and r.-Fei-f ->l I-, iPSBO lent to (lie common account. The agreement was written by witness and the signature was that of (lel'oiidaiil. The Court rose at I p.m. til! 2.15 p.lll. AFTERNOON SITTING. His Honour resumed his -eat at 2.15 U"'William .1. Hanshury continued: The terms in the agreement were dictated by liis brother, who wrote one in his own book which witness signed and then copied out the agreement and his brother signed that. The £MSO included the house, his own persona! accounts and coutciUs of the house. After signing the agi'e, ment found he had not been credited with share in Ford's land. During the period July 1919 to 1922. w itness acted as a partner, being in full charge during his brother's absence, drawing cheques on the bank account for necessary payments. His brother never charged witness with taking moneys for his own use. He never removed anv of liis brother’s stock at any time. Yi'itness produced a return or sheep under the Stock Act and copy of brand. (It was admitted by defend.mi’s counsel that they had not sent in any reM,:n - of sheep under the Stock Act).

Cross-examined by Air Patterson —He li-t foci ! the mistake in the statement when he presented it to Air Murdoch, lie signed for £750 thinking it was correct. If he had seun the error he would not have signed the document. When thev had the dispute be thought it better to accept wages, in preference to attempting to light the partnership question. Had a horse. Nugget, looked 011 it as his own. though his brut her had bought it.

Counsel proceeded to cross-examine witness as to payments made on his account liv the defendant. His Honoui ruled that the defence set down did not allow counsel to lollow the course attempted. Air Patterson asked leave to amend accordingly. Leave was refused by his Honour who stated that when the amended defence was put in, the particulars should have been supplied, and that had not been done. Air Patterson said lie had been unable to get the particulars till Saturday last.

His Honour -niii Counsel was not entitled at that static of the trial to sprint; a surprise on the plaintiff. Mr Patterson suggested that the hearing be adjourned till \\ odnesday morning. In an answer to his Honour Mr Murdoch declined to waver any point in view of the attitude of the defendant. After considerable discussion and the handing in of the list of payments claimed by defendant on plaintiff s he- 1 half it was decided to allow examina-j tion thereof, subject to If is Honor re- j serving the right to disallow the evi- i deuce if he thought advisable. Witness was examined at great length on a number of payments made on "many occasions to his Honour de-

dining to allow the course of questions, on the grounds of irrevelancy. Witness continuing said he did not remove any sheep from Ford’s area about July' 1922. He did not remove Jambs from Ford’s. He removed some cattle for which lie showed receipts. Re-examined by Mr Aiurdocli—During bis absence at the war his brothel did not quite replace the stock leit when lie (witness) went to the war. Tiie Court rose at 5.30 p.m. till 19 a.m. next day.