MONEY LENT.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 238, 24 May 1928, Page 4

MONEY LENT.

A TIRAU CLAIM. A. J. Brooke, late of Tirau, and his wife, Rubina Brooke, were proceeded against in the Putaruru Court by Frank Rose, merchant, also of Tirau, for the sum of £4l 13s 7d, for goods and money advanced together with interest. Mr. G. G. Bell (Hampson and Bell) appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Burns for the defendants. Plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that the loan had been made to help Brooke in his business. There was no mention of interest at the time, and none would have been charged had the amount been paid back in reasonable time.

Cross-examined, plaintiff admitted that part of the amount claimed was owing to Rose Bros., Ltd., but he was practically the firm. He had received no personal instructions from Brooke to have a bill of sale prepared. He knew defendant had received money from the Old Country to settle his debts.

J. R. O. Lochhead, managing clerk to Messrs. Hampson and Bell, stated he had been instructed by plaintiff to collect the money from Brooke. In response to the demand Mrs. Brooke had called on March 5. Witness then learned for the first time the account was for money lent. Mrs. Brooke stated she owned the car, and not her husband. A bill of sale was suggested and for that purpose he got both names in full, and it was agreed that interest was to be charged from the date of the debt. He then arranged for both parties to call on the following Friday to complete the bill of sale. He was positive that no offer of 10s per fortnight had been made. Mrs. Brooke stated that she had never borrowed or guaranteed any money from Mr. Rose. She held that the bill of sale was only suggested, and that she was to consult her husband on the matter. There was no mention of interest made.

Cross-examined, witness admitted receiving a paper to get the number of the car, etc., and also that she came on behalf of her husband to try and fix the matter up. She admitted suggesting the bill of sale as the car was hers, and having given both names in full.

The Magistrate held that witness had acted as her husband’s agent, and the suggestion of the bill of sale had come from her, and accordingly entered judgment for £32 3s 9d being the amount claimed less items owing to the firm, together with costs amounting to £5 9s 6d.