A DISPUTED CLAIM.

Otaki Mail, 16 February 1923, Page 4

A DISPUTED CLAIM.

HEABD AT LEVIN S.M. COURT. M. Bell and E. F. Upham, executors of the late Charles Bell, v. Martha Nicholls, of Ohau, a claim for £5 for money advanced and interest thereon. Mr Harper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Blenkhorn for defendant. Evidence was given by Fitzgerald Bell, son of the late Mr Charles Bell, to' the effect that his father advanced to defendant the sum of £4 10/. About a month before his father died, he said he wished to get some of his outstanding money in. This amount was mentioned among others. Witness wrote to defendant about it, but got no reply. To Mr Blenkhorn: The amount was entered in his lather's ledger. The reason his father had mentioned this particular amount was that a lot of money was outstanding, and he wished to get it in. Defendant admitted borrowing the money in February, 1922. Witness stated that on February 6 of last year she came to Levin to collect some rent, but owing to a legul document not being completed she could not get the money. She met Mr Bell, and asked for the loan of £5, as she wanted it urgently. Mr Bell gave her £4 10/. A week later, having received her rent, she came up to repay the loan. Not seeing Mr Bell about she sent a native named Mehaka to find him, which he did. Witness paid Mr Bell, who charged her 5/ interest. To Mr Blenkhorn: Witness had borrowed money from Mr Beil on previous occasions, and had repaid it. She had never troubled about receipts.

To Mr Harper: Witness admitted getting a lawyer’s letter, but had replied to it. Counsel said this letter had never been received, by him. William Mehaka, Poroutawhao, said lie remembered going to find Mr Beil at the request of defendant, who said she wished to pay Mr Bell some money-. Witness met Mr Bell in the street and delivered the message. To Mr Harper: Witness did not see the money'being paid over. : His Worship said defendant’s story I seemed quite feasible and truthful, also her explanation that no- receipt had been given. Judgment would be for defendant. As defendant, however, had been careless in not making her explanation earlier to plaintiffs, no costs would be. allowed. CIVIL CASES. Judgment tor plaintiffs was given in the following undefended cases: M. JSuhan v. C. Milieu (Trentham), claim £ll 8/8, costs £2 17/; O. Koberstein v. Paul Hirama, claim £9 10/, casts £1 10/6; Wiki Hanita v. Mrs G. H. Cahill, claim £3, costs £1 3/6.