Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

EXTRAORDINARY PROPERTY DEAL.

THE HARDING-MCINTOSH CASE.

PLAINTIFF UNDER CROSSEXAMINATION.

A TRYING ORDEAL. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper.

The engrossing interest.evinced in the case, commenced on Wednesday, of James W. Harding, farmer, of Norfolk-road, against Alexander James Mcintosh, late manager of the New Plymouth branch of the Bank of Australasia, for specific performance in connection with a land transaction, was amply demonstrated by the crowded state of the Supreme Court all day yesterday. Piaintiff was submitted to a searching crossexamination, lasting for six hours, by Mr Samuel, counsel for defendant. The Court resumed at 10 o'clock, and Mr Samuel commenced his crossexamination of plaintiff, who said, in reply to counsel, that he left his father's farm in England four or five months before he came to NewZealand visiting his brothers and sisters. He was the only son on the farm, and assisted his father, without wages. His father gave him £I6OO in cash. His uncle gave him .£2OO, and he had saved out of his earnings by mowing for other people. On his arrival in New Plymouth he stayed one night at Chatsworth House, and then for a week at the White Hart. He had not stayed ac the Coffee Palace, nor had he told the defendant he was staying there. At his first interview with defendant at the bank ho did not tell defendant

that he was going next morning to Kaponga to see a Mr Routley, to whom he had a letter of introduction. The defendant did not mention the

namo of Mr Lepper (contradicting the evidence given in examination). It was at that interview that defendant advised him to get his money out from England, for investment. That had proved to be good advice. Defendant told him not to trust the land agents, and from subsequent experience he had found that to be good advice, too. The conversation took about an hour, perhaps two hours. After that interview, Mcintosh invited him to his private residence to have a glass of whiskey. This, the witness montioned was not the usual English hospitality. A bank manager at Home would have needed an introduction before doing so. Mrs and Miss Mcintosh came into the din-ing-room while they were there. When he left it was with an invitation to call again that evening, and in the evening Mcintosh told him that he needn't go to Kaponga, as Mr Leppei would take him on his farm. For the next ew days, ho was a constant visitor at Mr Mcintosh's by his specific invitation. During these few days, Mcintosh to'd him Lepper wou'd come in to see him on Saturday, and on that day Leppor came. Witness went out to the farm, staying there, a week or a fortnight. He thought Lepper was a straight man. Would not state that Fisher or Hill were other than straight, but they were got by Mcintosh to do things. He stayed at the While Hart for just a week, paying 35/. He. had landed in New Zealand on 7th November, arrived in New Plymouth on the gth, and had seen Mr Mcintosh the same day, cashing the coupons. Stayed at Lepper's until the first day of the New Plymouth races (Boxing Day). He was supposed to return to the farm thai day, and help to milk, but did not do so, as Mcintosh told him that he had arranged with Lepper that he need not go back. Ho swore that was true. He cou'-d not remember how ho got his luggage in, whether he and Mcintosh drove out for it, or whether it was sent in. Remembcied calling at Lepper's ones subsequently with Mr Canhew. Witness, when he left Lepper's, considered he knew enough, with Mcintosh's help, to take a farm himself: ho did not feel confident in himself, but could do it with Mcintosh's assistance and advice. The. defendant had given him chat help and advice that he had expected, except that "he had me for somo cattle." He had farmed successfully, made a nice home, and had a trip to the Argentine and England. Mcintosh's advice up to this point had been good. Before he went to Lepper's, Mcintosh advised him to marry, Before that advice, witness had been "walking out" with Miss Mcintosh nearly every night. He was not "in love,' but liked the lady. Never was really in love with her. Believed in Mcintosh when he promised to furnish his house, and when ho said this marriage would make a fortune for him. No, he was not suffering from temporary imbeciiity or from any mental disability. Ho did not think he would have married but for the promises held out by defendant; he was not sure. Mcintosh did not furnish the house, but put some furniture in. The piano was given his wife by Mis Mcintosh; it was an old one. Mrs Mcintosh had taken him to Fisher and Jones', and selected the furniture. "1 understood Mcintosh was to pay," said the witness, "but afterwards bills wen- sent to me. Mcintosh did several things like that" (laughter). Mr Samuel: A man like you, entering into the most sacred state ot life, influenced by sordid pecuniary motives, do you mean to say that you never reminded Mcintosh of his alleged promise to furnish your house ? Witness: I didn't like to do that.

Mr Samuel: What! a man of your character did not like to ? Witness: I dout care what you think about my c.iaracter. It is the truth.

Mr Samuel: 1 suppose you bring these things in to show what sort of a man Mcintosh was. Witness : People know the sort of man he is. Mr Samuel ; Don't you think it shows the sou of man you are? Witness: 1 don't think so. Witness said he had frequently come in from Lepper's to see Miss Mcintosh, and once she came out to soo him. During the whole of that time he had not mentioned the matter of marriage to her. Whilst he was at Lepper's Mcintosh did not mention the proposed marriage to him. Did not believe the matter was mentioned by Mcintosh even when he returned to town; that was left to witness.. Mcintosh didn't say so. His Honor. But you couldn't have married her without her consent. Mr Samuel: Then he didn't force or urge the marriage on you ? Witness: No. Mr Samuel: W'e'.l, why do you mention this at all in your statement of ciaim? Why bring in your dead wife's name.

Witness: ( did not want my wife's name dragged in at all. 1 asked my solicitor to keep it out, but Ik wanted it brought in. Mr Samuel: Then it is your solicitor, and not you; you impute these base unworthy motives to your so'ic ilor? 1 don't believe it. Witness repeated that these relations were introduced by the solicitor, who said it was necessary. Mr Samuel: Then it is not only also your solicitor that you blame? Your'e singularly unfortunate. Witness: I don't blame Sam Hill. Mr Samuel; But at any rate you blame your solicitor? Witness : Well, he's there; ask him about it. Witness had never complained to his" wife of the breach of faith bv Mcintosh. Mr Samuel: Within three months of your marriage, did Mr Mcintosh come out to sec you ? Witness; He used to very often como out. Mr Samuel: Did he not on thi' occasion find your wife with both her oyrs black, and with her nose broken; Witness,: I did not want to brine this up, your Honor, but I will ex plain. Mr Mcintosh, my wife and the servant girl drove out to the farm. 1 arrived later with a load of furniture. It was dark when I got there. I found the three of them drunk.

Mr Samuel: Servant girl, too? Witness: Mr Mcintosh knows about the servant girl. Mrs Mcintosh would not al'ow the servant girl go out, so they met he r down town and took her out.

Witness continued that on this occasion, the first day at the faim, when ho was taking possession. Mcintosh,

witness's wife, and the servanc were j all drunk. Mcintosh nearly died that , night. Witness and Barlow (a man . employed on tlio farm,) had to hold j him out of the window so that he . could get his breath, lie would not , let his wife into the bedroom, so she smashed the bedroom door with an ( axe, and knocked herself about. To His Honor, witness said that on j the occasion of taking possession, his . wife was drunk, but did not knock , herself about. That was another oc- ] casion. Mr Samuel: Do you remember Mcintosh coming out ? That he < found her with two black eyes, and a broken nose, marks that she bore i to her death ? and that you went down on your bended knees, admitted you had done this, and begged his par- i don ? " Witness recollected one occasion, j when she had knocked herself about, knocked down the door with an axe, and was very ill afterwards. He did not cause the injuries, but only held her. His Honor: The next point is that Mr Samuel has asked you if you went down on your knees, admitted you had caused the injuries, and begged for pardon. Witness : I "deny that. Mr Samuel said that he intended to refer to this specifically in the defence. Dr Friedley asked for a ruling as to whether this evidence, subsequent to the 3rd of March, was relevant. His Honor ruled that it was relevant and that Dr Findlay could call evidence of the doctor who attended Mrs Harding, and any other evidence pertaining to this evidence, which would be relevant in establishing the truthfulness of one witness or the other. The evidence was exceedingly painful, but he could not exclude it. Witness' examination was continued : When he sent the man to town Mrs Harding was faint; she had knocked herself about a bit, but he did not think her eyes were blackened. The injury to her nose was prior to the marriage. When Mcintosh came Mrs Harding went to the door to meet him. His wife did not say that he (witness) had struck her with his clenched fist. She did not say he had struck her repeatedly, or that he had struck her at all. She did not say he had blackened her eyes. She did not say he had broken her nose. She did not say ho had knocked her down and kicked her whilst she was down. She said she was better, a lot better, but had been very ill. Witness told Mcintosh she had been indulging n too much drink, and that he had thought ho was going to lose her. "I have never struck my wife in my life, but I have held her and put her out of the room sometimes." His Honor: Was this some mental trouble, or through drink. Witness: I am sorry to say, Your Honor, that it was through drink. Dr Findiay said medical evidence would be called on this point. Witness said he had never used bad language to his wife. Ho did ,however, very often swear at his men and dogs, and something might have slipped out. lie would swear he had never sworn at her. He denied that on one occasion when he was swearing at his wife Barlow interfered, and that he tried to throw Barlow against the stove. His wife and the servant had never been compelled to leave the house and spend the night 151 the toi-toi bushes'in order to esoape his violence. Florrie Gunson, the servant, had gone away because Mrs Harding attacked her with a knife. Witness saved her life. The first child was born in a nursing-home in New Plymouth and witness had paid iho account. Witness received an account for £l4 .for liquor supplied during his wife's stay in the nursinghome, ,£l4 worth in seven days. He had been sued for this, and Mr Wilson (Wilson and Roy) was going to defend the case. Mcintosh met plaintiff and the solicitor on tho way to the CO art. He was going to defend that his wife could not have consumed the liquor in the time. Mcintosh paid the account. None of that liquor was supplied by Humphries to the farm.

Mr Samuel passed over to the date of the New Plymouth Exhibition Christmas, 1904. Witness did not remember turning his wife out one cold rough night. He had come home from the stock sale, and found his wife intoxicated.. They had a row. Then she took a cheque for £l3, out of a drawer, and came to New Plymouth with the girl. He did not turn her out, did not strike her, kick her, or turn her out. Mcintosh had told people that. Dr Findlay: You needn't tell us that. We know the author of it.

Mr Samuel: Yes, we dp know the author of it. He did not have another row about a week after the charge against him of cattle-stealing had been dismissed. Remembered being at Mrs Riddell's house on the night before he left for England. Mrs Russell was nursing Mrs Riddell. Did not know Mrs Russell was a nurse, and did not know Mrs Harding had been there. , Mrs Russell did not say to him, in Mrs Riddell's hearing, 'Did you not, after Mrs harding had gone "homo from me, take her by the hair across tho lawn, and threaten to drown her."

Mr Samuel: Did you not admit that it was true? Witness: No such question was put to me at all by Mrs Russell. Mrs Riddell did not say, "Mr Harding if you did that you should b= hung for it."

Mr Samuel: And did you not say, "better that than live with a woman who is always drunk." Witness : No. I never discussed my wife with people, or with Mrs Riddell. Mrs Harding did not go Home with him, preferring to stay with the children at the farm. He left her well provided for. She had .£2O in notes, and over j£iooo worth of cattle. She had authority to sell the cattle. He had not tokl his wife to sell through Vickers and Stevens. He lisjd :instructed Vickers and Stevens to hold .he money for any cattle sold through them by Barlow, but Mrs Harding cuuld sell them and get the money. She did -sell them, and received about £2OO for them in less than twelve months. I

It was in consequence of Mr Quiliiam's advice that ho had obtained a transfer of half the property to him- ! self. He was quite clear on that point. He should have insisted on a transfer of the' whole, but accepted half on the understanding that the other half should go to his wife and children. At the time he took the advice, the property was all in the Mcintosh's name. Witness: I asked Mr Mcintosh "who's going to do this ?'' He said : "Mr Richmond." I said : "No, I dont vvant Mr Richmond to do it; wouldn't Mr Quilliam do ?" He said "No". Then\viU Mr Samuel do?" Mcintosh said, "If you're not satisfied with Mr Richmond I won't transfer at all." Witness had paid 5/ for the transfer.

Referring to the purchase of the farm, witness said Mr S. Hill had valued it at above vhe price asked. He did not sign the purchase note if the property, but agreed to buy the farm. Witness did not come from the farm 10 lnglewood with Mcintosh, but drove .with HH ! . Was then staying with Mcintosh. He did not that night relievo his mind of anxiety by getting Mcintosh to take half the responsibility, and did not make a verbal arrangement to that effect.

After the luncheon adjournment, the cross-examination of plaintiff by Mr Samuel was continued. He stated he did not tell Mrs Mcintosh that he wanted to see defendant. He did say that he was trying to rob him and his children of their bit of property. Did not remember saying that defendant had been very good to him. It was true that Mcintosh had formerly been good to him, but not then, when he was trying to work a swindle 'ga'nst plaintiff, also one over some Ureti cattle matter, in connection vith Richmond, soiiticor. Told Mrs Mcintosh that defendant owed him money, and that he owed Mr Mcintosh money. To'd Mrs Mcintosh (Sat Iter husband was not interested at all in his property, fiat he had not put a penny into it. Witness paid every penny put into the farm except, of course, the mortgage. Mrs Mclntcsh said she had understood that Mr Mcintosh had put mon'r into the farm. Mrs Mcintosh did not sav she. had heard witness say to defendant that he wanted Mcintosh to do into the purchase with him. (The leases were put j n .) Witness called it "one of the dumm/

leases." He had signed either two or three of those on 3rd March. He also signed three transfers of the farm to Mcintosh. He did not think all the documents were signed on the same day. His Honor: They all bear the same date.

Mr Samuel: I don't want to fall into any trap. But you practically allege that Mcintosh entered into a conspiracy with Hill to gull the Public Trutsee.

Witness: Mcintosh gulled Hill. Mr Samuel: The same as he gulled you, eh ? Witness: He took me down all right.

Mr Samuel: You were all equally 'gulled," then. I hope he's more :han equally honest, at any rate.

Witness was sure that in March ho had signed all documents in Mcintosh's dining-room, and none in Mr Richmond's office. He could not say which came first, the leases or the transfers. Mr Richmond was not present when witness signed anything, though his signature waß there as having attested Harding's signature.

Mr Samuel protested against a solicitor of the Supreme Court being maligned thus in his absence. Witness could not say whether Mcintosh signed ;at the same time as he (witness) did. He did not think so. He trusted Mcintosh implicitly in this as in many other transactions. At the time of sign r irig- ho knew that the document transferred the farm from Broughtons to Mcintosh, with witness' consent.. Knew the mortgage was for the purpose of raising £3OOO from the Public Trustee. Knew there was a lease of the farm from Mcintosh to witness, and he signed it. Had the lease been read over to him, he would not have signed. His Honor: Had you known that' the fraud was to be perpetrated on you, instead of on the Public Trustee, you would not have signed, eh? Witness said that Mcintosh gave him no' particulars as to how the £1250 was made up, or how the ,£2lO rent was arrived at. ( Witness had never paid any rent The £lO5 payment was merely a nominal payment to blind the Public Trustee, the money being returned to witness later, less £6 or so, paid'in land-tax. Witness paid £384 odd to Mcintosh, who handed it to Richmond. Was not in Richmond's office during March. Knew Hill, the Government Valuer, from January 6th. Had thought he would get full value for his money when Mcintosh and Hill told him it was worth ,£lO an acre , arid he bought at £6 12/0. The land was, at that time, worth £IOOO more than he gave for it. It was worth £7 an acr«. He did not think the two houses were worth £325. Mr Samuel: Now, you posed as an

innocent child once. You can't keep it up now. You have had sales and leases since. You have farmed a'i these years. You wont home to England and posed as an authority, got into print, and so on. You should know something of values by this time.

Mr Samuel; And the outbuildings, were they worth £100? Witness: "There was a cow-shed, that I pulled down, and a stable that blew down; a workshop. They were not worth £IOO. Gates and fences were not worth ,(,'250, they were all rotten, and falling over. Orchard, .£125! Pooh! Witness went into particulars of the statement put m showing details of his improvements. To Mr Samuel: Mcintosh had had nothing out of the farm, nor had he asked for anything. The whole object of the fraud was to get £3ooo' from the Public Trustee. "It was to make my fortune," he said, "and that was how I was to go about it, Und my money out at 10 per cent, as Mcintosh did for me, and obtain other money at 4J per cent." He would have been satisfied if defendant had executed a deed of trust in favour of hiß (Harding's) wife and children. "I only wanted to maki a home," he said, "I didn't want tc grow rich, or anyching like that. 1 didn't want my children turned out on the world." Witness admitted that Mcintosh had paid several ac counts for him, and there were big accounts either way. Witness entered into detail concerning a cattle transaction, in which witness dropped £3OO, whilst Mcintosh made ,660. Witness put £450 into the deal, and Molntosh £qo. Losses of cattle ensued, and they each arranged to take "I have never goi the balance yet," he added. This detailed examination took some time. Witness said he thoroughly understood what he was doing when ho released the mortgage and got half the farm in his name, At that time Mcintosh instructed Richmond to prepare a deed transferring half of the property to his chi'dnn, but this had not been done. He would be satisfied now to have the property in dispute put in trust with the Public

Trustee, not with -Mcintosh, for his children. He had signed the release, because he "understood Richmond to be an honest lawyer," and trusting to defendant s promise. Reexamined by Dr. Findlay: Mcintosh paid no part of the purchasemoney of the farm, which he now estimated was worth £l2 10/ per acre, it Molntosh succeeded in this action ho would get ,£1664 that ho was noi entitled 0.

Mr Samuel: What about the partnership accountf Jjk Honor said there was hardly ;i partnership.. Jfliey. were merely tenants in common, Witness said that Mcintosh had lent several sums of witness' (Harding) money to the bank's clients, whose names he (Mcintosh) could not dispose. Ho had never seen the securities, and did not know the borrowers or the rate of interest obtained by Mcintosh. Roughly, ho estimated that Mcintosh had lent out £IOOO for him. Sometimes cashed his own cheques in Inglowood and Stratford and gave the cash to Mcintosh, thus saving exchange. In August, 1904, when the mortgage was released there was no statement of the accounts between witness and Mcintosh, though he had often asked for one.

J Witness explained the cattlc-steal--1 ing charge mentioned by Mr Samue!. ! Ho had sent his man to muster on his Purangi farm, and the man brought in a cow that belonged to a neighbour. It was sold, and witness arrested for cattle-stealing. The charge was instantly dismissed. Dr. Findlay asked if there was any ground for the statement that witness was cruel to his wife, witness rep'ied, "We had rows," but said he had no desire to entc r (n that subject further. Mrs Mcintosh had stated that Mcintosh had paid the hospital and nursing accounts contracted during his late wife's illness. Witness had showed her the cheque butts, removing that apprehension. To His" Honor: As far as he knew, Mcintosh had returned all moneys handed to him for investment. His only complaint on that score was that he had received no statement.

At 20 minutes to five the plaintiff's evidence was completed, and the Court adjourned till I 0 o'clook this morning.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19060928.2.11

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81853, 28 September 1906, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
3,982

EXTRAORDINARY PROPERTY DEAL. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81853, 28 September 1906, Page 2

EXTRAORDINARY PROPERTY DEAL. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81853, 28 September 1906, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert