MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
A FAMILY AFFAIR. I'he Magistrate’s Court wa* occupied during the greater part of the day on Monday last in the hearing < T a claim by Alexander Clarke (Mr O'Neill) against the separate estate of his sister Louisa Spurway (Mr ll innaj.for £4O cash lent. Mrs Spurway in a separate action claimed against Clarke the sum of £124, the principal items being £52 for wages as a housekeeper and £54 for hot meals supplied. Clarke entered a counterclaim in this action for £lO2 7s 6d. be'ng £67 17s 6d, portion of his allotment moneys while he was on active service, and £34 10s rent of his bouse. The three actions were taken together.
Plaintifi' in his evidence stated that after his return from active service in October, 1918, he and his brother and sister all lived together in his house off Thames Road. Tn June, 19’0, the defendant purchased the house in Esplanade Road where she now I'vcs, The deposit required on the purchase of this house was £l5O. of which sum £4O was lent by plaintiff to defendant. No definite time for repayment was fixed, : ut defendan' was to pay as she became aid?. She had since refused to pay anything.
To Mr Hanna witness stated that his sister was working in Auckland, and he had asked her twice to come to Paeroa as there was a home here for her. When he went ‘o the wa-' his sister still kept house for him. He allotted her Is 6d of iris military pay to look after till he came baci. Out of this she was to pay the instalments doe to tlie State Advances Superintendent as they became due. Witness stated that defendant had given him several hot mea.s for about six months, but he had not paid foi them as she would not take any payment.
T. C. Bayliss gave evidence as to two ccws which had been purchased by defendant. J. L. Hanna gave formal evidence as to the particulars of a second mortgage to F. A. Hanlon for £125 raised by plaintiff.
Emily Jane Ryan said that she was a sisted of both parties and remciuiH’icd the defendant purchasing toe house m June. 1920, with some money of hci own, plus £4O borrowed from Ute plaintifi. Witness knew it was a >oau because defendant had told hoi ,o. She believed plaintiff gave iris eariuiigs to defendant, but did not Know what arrangements had been made with reference to board and io Iging.
To Mi’ Hanna witness said tliat she li ad beard no complaints. Defendant had staled tliat she had borrowed £lO from plaintiff to pay the deposit plied with meals by witness on sevon her house- She haul supplied plaintiff witli meals on several occasions, and he had bought provision in return. She did not think that defendant would deliberately beat plaintifi for m*. ney. To the best of her knowledge plaintiff had about £5O in the bank when he returned from th a war.
William Clarke, brother of plaintiff. stated that’ lie remembered his sisted (defendant) buying a house an l borrowing money from plaintiff to pay the deposit, lie had lived with his brother and sister in a house on Tlianus Road before going to tlie war and after his return. Plaintiff had always given his wages to defendant, but he did not know much about tlie transactions concerning Hie purchase and exchange of two cows, lie paid his sister £1 a week board. To Mi' Hanna witness stated that Iris shier had kept iiouse for his bro-th-'r and himself, leaving a billet ?.n Auckland to come to Paeroa to do so. For tlie defence Louisa Spur way, de'cudant, stated that she was a sister to W. and A. Clarke and Mrs Ryan. Witness stated that the £4O had been given her to pay tlie deposit, which amount she alleged, was due to hei for services rendered as a housekeeper. She denied tliat plaintiff had paid for the cuw.s in question, and tlie cupboard had been built at plaintn'i s request but she had paid for it. On plaintiff’s return from the war stie had loaned him £l2 tu mea a mortgage to the State Advances O ne*’, Plaintiff had allotted her 4s a day from Iris pay on active service which she had used to pay old account*, the balance i-cing banked for plaintiffShe had never used iris money for her own jtn poses. She had paid off the mortgage to the Government and rates and insurance,s as well as the old debts. Witness denied ever receiving an offer of payment for meal* supplied. . To Mr O’Neill witness said that she had not kept any account of moneys received from plaintiff. She -did nOv dispute receiving 4s 6d a day allotment money from plaintiff, ami adnrittrr receiving nearly all bis wages, but denied that she had received the gratuity money amounting to over £4O. His Worship subjected the defendant to a lengthy examination, ;'fter which W. Clarke was recalled and further examined by His Worship as to the payments made by witness for board and lodging. Alec Clarke, plaintiff, said that ne had made several demands for the rc-tu-n of the £4O- The reason why he had stopped having his meals with de f cndanl was because he had beei ordered out of the house. To Mr Hanna plaintiff denied that he bad talked about defendant, but had given her every opportunity co repay the money. To Tlis Worship witness stated th it defendant bad made n<> claim fo.’ housekeeper's wages until ho had demanded the return fo the £4O. Decision was reserved.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HPGAZ19240507.2.11
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4695, 7 May 1924, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
942MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4695, 7 May 1924, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hauraki Plains Gazette. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.