DENIAL OF DEBT

Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1932, Page 2

DENIAL OF DEBT

all evidence was not given. A LOAN MADE IN A CLUB. CHRISTCHURCH, September 16. A complete denial of a debt of £29 (was made by the defence in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, when John Vuletta, a tobacconist, of Timaru, claimed that amount from Frederick Lyon Eastgate, an agent, - of Cashel Arcade, 165, Cashel Street, Christchurch: The defence' contended that there was • no evidence to prove that the debt; had • been incurred,' and, further, no receipt for the money had been given. However, after hearing the evidence, the Magistrate (Mr H. A'. Young, S.M.) said that there was probably more at the back of the case than had been disclosed. Neither party desired to hav© the full nature of. the transaction, set out, but ’ it seemed that, on • the admissions, there was a debt. of £29. He gave judgment to'plaintiff for £29, with cost*. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that de-fendant-had borrowed £35 from him in April, 1926/in the Gloucester, Social Club, Christchurch. No receipt was given for th e loan. Later, witness had asked lot some of the money back, and defendant had paid him £6 in November, 1928. The transaction again took .pl/ac© at the club. : Ih (September, 1931, witness * said be instructed his ißolidtor to write to Eastgate asking for the (rest of the money. n met defendant by accident last evening, and he asked. if I wan going on with the case,” continued witness. “I told fhim I was, because the money had been owing to 'long. Thpn Eastgate, tried to > -buff m© that I was a bookmaker, and that he had a clever lawyer who;.would put me out quick' laud lively. . said I had ■ been convicted of bookmaking,. and , asked me not to go on with the case, as he could not pay the money.”. Cross-examined, Vuletta .said that he was not surprised; when' Eastgate : had called ‘him a bookmaker. H e was not a bookmaker when he lent the £35, but: admitted that he had been . convicted twice since for bookmaking. He had; also issued, charts. / ' ■ ; “I, was working: in tH© freezing works at Paneora at the 1 time I' -lent 'Eastgate the money,”: said . the witness. “That’s where bookmaners are bred, (isn't it P” asked, counsel for .the •defenpe. . Continuing, witness 1 said' thathe.had more than-j£3s.,in cash on th© night ho lent the-money to Eastgate in the , club. Several times after that, he had written to lEastgat© asking for th© return of (

the money, but the letters had been ignored. . “Why did you not ask for some recognition of the debt in writing p asked counsel for the defence. “Because Eastgate was too shrewd and would not have given it to me,” replied witness. He had sued other people for debt, continued witness. “And what was the name of the last person you sued?”—l would rather not tell you. He is an officer in Government employ. Counsel for plaintiff appealed to the Magistrate, who said that the name did not hav© to be given.

Counsel for defendant: When you lent the money to Eastgate, was there a game going on?—There may have been.

There was not, by any chance, dicing going on?—No. You would not say this debt was due to gambling?—No. ■ Witness said he had lent the money to Eastgate without a receipt because of his big reputation.

Counsel for plaintiff (then went into th© witness box. H© said that he had written .two letters to Eastgate with reference to the loan, Eastgate had called on him, and denied legal liability for th e -debt, 6ut said that he hoped to pay off £lO in a few months. He had admitted borrowing £35 and paying Lack £6. Counsel for the defence submitted that he was entitled to a non-suit. There was no corroborative evidence to ahow that the 'loan had ever been granted, and there was no documentary evidence to prove it. Th© letters sent by, and the admissions to counsel for the plaintiff by Eastgate showed no legal liability for the debt. “I am not prepared to grant a nonsuit,” said the Magistrate.

. Eastgate, in evidence,, said that he did. not owe plaintiff any money. He had not paid him £6. He had not paid anything to p’aintiff during the last six years. He - had never received letters, from, plaintiff, but had received letters from plaintiff’s solicitor. •Counsel for defendant: Prior to six or seven years ago, did you have an account with plaintiff ?—Well, to be quite candid, it was a gambling, game. Later," Eastgate said that p'aifitiff’s story was the biggest pack of lies he had ever beard.

Cross-examined, witness said that th© most he 'had borrowed from plaintiff war,. £ls, but be. had not really borrowed, as x all . helped each other when, they; lost. All those debts.- were cleared up now.

Counsel .for plaintiff: Do you say that, the debt is over seven years old? —Ye®. That' is, the claim is that old. To the witness said that