HELENSVILLE S.M. COURT.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 4 September 1919, Page 3

HELENSVILLE S.M. COURT.

WEDNESDAY,. AUGUST 27m

(Before Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M.)

MARTIN V. NODA,

This case, which possessed some unusual features, and in which a good deal of interest has been taken, was before the Court on the above date. The plaintiff, Margaret Martin, for whom Mr J. J. Sullivan appeared, claimed from Marten Noda (Mr E.T. Field) the sum of £80, of which amount £45 was for a business sold to defendant, and £35 for various articles alleged to have been purchased by him.

Margaret Martin, Helensville, stated that some time ago she had Agreed to sell her fruit and confectionery business to Marten Noda, and on March 6th last an agreement was arrived at whereby she was to receive £45 for the business. On that date defendant handed her a cheque on the National Bank at Papa-roa foi* £45, for which amount she gave a receipt. Witness took the cheque to the Bank, where she experienced some difficulty about getting it cashed. Witness visited Auckland, and on her return took the cheque back to the shop to Noda, who tore it up and wrote out a second one. This was on March 11th. Witness said she wanted cash, and Noda said he would cash .the. cheque himself, and bring the money back to her. Mr Wallace, manager of Bank of New Zealand, was present, and said the money for the cheque was in the Bank. Both Noda and the Bank manager left the shop. In reply to a question, witness said this would be about 2.30 p.m. Noda locked the shop, went -away, and didn't return. Witness waited for him about 20 minutes. Witness went back to the shop in the evening with her brother, saw Noda, and said to him : *' You haven't paid me my money." Noda said : " You deal with my solicitors —the business is mine." On Wednesday morning, witness stated, she went to the Bank to see the manager, and asked him if the cheque had been cashed ; went straight to see Constable Hunt, who was away ; went to the shop, jumped the counter, faced Noda, and "told him if he didn't pay me the money, to get out. With that he picked ud two papers, and went out of the shop. I haven't seen him since." Witness stated she sent for articles left behind in the shop, but had not received them.

Cross examined by Mr Field, witness stated that on March 6th she gave a receipt for the amount. When she returned from Auckland, Noda tore up first cheque, and wrote out another. Witness stated she signed another paper on March 10th, when she received the second cheque. Didn't read the document right through. Further examined on this point, witness said she couldn't remember if she signed two receipts. She was not prepared to swear she signed a second one.

Mr Field: Did Noda come back and pay you the money ?

Witness : I tell you definitely Noda did not.

The receipt was handed in for examination. Witness verified her signature.

- By Mr Field : She received 10s deposit for the business some time previously. Defendant was a good while completing the deal. She had put new stock in, and wanted £50, but eventually agreed to £45.

C. Hopmeier, gardener, Waikumete, stated he was speaking to defendant for about half-an-hour on the afternoon of the 11th from 2-30. Noda didn't mention anything about paying Miss Martin.

By Mr Sullivan : Apart from the deal he had made, Noda mentioned he was going to buy some furniture —a separate deal.

By Mr Field : Told witness he was going to buy just a table and a few chairs. May have told witness he had paid Miss Martin the money. Both parties had told him of the matter.

Mrs. David Ross stated she could not recollect the date, but jjvould tell exactly what she knew. Miss Martin oame up to her place and said she was all right —would be able to pay her debts now. Miss Martin would be at witnesses' place from 345 to 3.30 p.m- Remembered the time because the school beU rang while they were having tea,

Walter Martin, hairdresser, brother of plaintiff, stated that he saw Noda in the afternoon of the 11th between 2.30 and 3 o'clock. Noda said " what sort of a bqsi-r ness woman is that sister of yours, I went qp and paid her cash, and she wont give the bqsiness up or the money back." Witness came down with his sister to the shop at ? o'clock,

and said to Noda: " I thought you told me you had paid my sister the money ?" Noda said : " I don't want to talk to you at all. This is my business —get' out of the shop. I'll go and get a policeman and have you put out." Witness said that was all he knew about the matter.

W. H. Coulter, tailor, whose shop adjoins the business sold, stated that Noda came in to his shop in the afternoon, and volunteered the information that there would be no more trouble, as he had paid Miss Martin in cash. Miss Martin came in in the evening, and said she had not received the money. Witness stated he saw plaintiff pass by the side window of his shop at about 4 p.m. \ she appeared to have come from the back of the shop.

Miss Martin, re-called, denied she had re-visited the shop from the time she had left it (about 2.45) until the evening at 7 p,m.

Marten Noda, defendant, stated : On February 21 I agreed to purchase business from Miss Martin for £40, and paid a deposit of 10s. On my return from Batley, saw Miss Martin, who wanted £50 for business, and said she would go to Court if she did not get it. I said I would sooner pay £10 than take a woman to Court. She agreed to take £45. I gave her a cheque for amount. She went to Auckland, and when she came back gave me the cheque, which she said she could not cash, I gave her another cheque. No receipt was made out for the second cheque ; said first receipt for cheque paid to her on the 6th would hold good. She rang me up on the 11th, said she had been to the Bank, and was told there was no money there for cheque. She said she went to the Union Bank, although I'd told her to go to the Bank of N,Z. She came'to shop with cheque, and said she wanted cash, and wouldn't have anything more to do with the cheque. Before leaving Batley, defendant stated his father had signed a complete book of blank cheques; but had told witness not to go over £50. Witness detailed his movements during the afternoon, from the time he left the shop to go to the bank to cash the cheque. He stated that: " Before I went to the bank, and after the bank manager had left the shop to go to the saleyards. I paid Miss Martin £45 in cash, in single notes. 1 had a little over £50 in cash." Witness further stated that he kept the money he got from the bank for the purpose of carrying on the business. Miss Martin signed a receipt.

Constable Hunt stated that defendant told him he had paid Miss Martin with the money obtained from the bank.

Defendant denied stating to anyone he had paid with the money from the bank, but maintained he had paid cash before gointf to the bank.

Defendant was severely crossexamined by Mr Sullivan.

By the Magistrate: This woman has deliberately come and tried to cheat you out of the money?--Yes.

Defendant stated that on 6th March he did not have £50. The money was in Batley, where he kept it in a box at home. He went home and obtained it. There was only £50 in the box. Further stated he went back to Pahi regatta between 6th and 11th. Defendant's evidence was a bit vague as to how the money and time between those two dates had been spent. A diary produced made no reference to a visit to Batley between the dates.

MAGISTRATE'S SEVERE COMMENT,

The case was concluded at Auckland on Friday last, when further evidence was called. The Magistrate in summing up, made some severe comments on defendant's action in regard to the transaction, " The defendant," said Mr Hunt, "swears he paid the £45 in oash, and plaintiff swears she never received it. Noda admitted giving plaintiff two cheques, and produced a receipt to prove he had paid the cash. If you examine that document you can see the date has been altered, I have no doubt that is the original receipt given by plaintiff on March (j. I also think that receipt has been altered to heat the woman out of £45. I think it a deliberate attempt to do that. During his examination defendant stated he ultimately paid that £45 out of £50 he had in his box : at home. IJis diary, however, states he never left Helensville for that plaoe. He now swears he was carrying that £50 around in his pocket. I do not believe him. I give judgment for plaintiff for £45, and order the return of the goods claimed not to be included in the sale, or in lieu thereof, payment of £10. It looks like a case of defendant thinking • ' I have got the cheque and the receipt, It is only a woman j I will do her out of it. 1"