GIFT OR LOAN?

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3868, 8 November 1928, Page 2

GIFT OR LOAN?

AN UNWELCOME VISITOR. In the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday morning before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., George McKeeman, of Palmerston North, proceeded against Eliza Ann Robbie, of Foxton, for the sum of £l2 as moneys allegedly lent on various dates at Palmerston North.

Mr. Fletcher appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Ongley for defendant. George McKeeman, in evidence, stated that he had' first met Mrs. Robbie when she had lived next door to his mother’s place in Milford road. On various occasions in Palmerston North, he had lent Mrs. Robbie sums of £4, £5, and £3, but had received no acknowledgment of the debt nor made any terms of repayment. Later, he had visited Mrs. Robbie in Foxton and asked for repayment of the £l2. Defendant had denied owing him money, and had ordered him out of the house.

On being cross-examined by Mr. Ongley, plaintiff denied that he had threatened Mrs. Robbie when she refused to allow him to pay his attentions to her. He denied that he had said he would take the £l2 from her and tell her husband that she had had a male visitor while living in Milford road. Further, he denied that he had visited Mrs. Robbie at Foxton beach on three occasions, when such visits were distasteful to her.

Mr. Ongley submitted that plaintiff had endeavoured to force unwelcome attentions .on Mrs. Robbie, and when ordered out of the place, he had attempted to blackmail her.

Defendant stated in the box that she was a married woman, living apart from her husband. After detailing plaintiff’s visits to her house while residing in Milford road, witness denied that she had ever borrowed money from McKeeman. He had sent her some newspapers containing racing news, but that was all she had ever borrowed from him. A telegram produced in Court, and containing reference to the return of papers, referred to those newspapers and not to money. McKeeman had paid unwelcome attentions to her and had incited excuses for visiting her house at Foxton, until she had been compelled to order him off. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, commented that it seemed strange for plaintiff to have lent money and received no acknowledgment of the loan. As far as the telegram was concerned, would it bear the construction put on .it by plaintiff, that “papers” referred to money, or the construction put’ on it by defendant, that this word referred to newspapers? However, it had noti been proved to his satisfaction that the money had been lent. Plaintiff had admitted visiting Foxon and it seemed from the evidence that if the money had been handed over, it had been as a gift, not as a loan. Judgment would therefore be for defendant, with expenses and costs.