SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 2 October 1907, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

1 SEW PJAWiorm .sessions. (Before Ilis Honor, .Mr Justice Dcmriston). Tlic Supreme Court .sittings were ,-.e sunied yesterday. CLAIM EOit iIESTH. rulilic Trustee v. W. Jlijnpluie-..--This was il claim lor X 17t> i*>> I'.il. du\i > ior rents under leases o) mtive iaiiu*. Mr Kerr appeared for the i\v iic - Trustee, and -Mr Ilutchen for defeuli' ant. _\Jr Kerr, in opening, said that it 5 was admitcd the rents had not Ue?ii j paid to the 1M 'lie Trustee, and the d<> ! fondant had not, as promised, l him with a statement of rents collected. The I '.Jids in question wove part of the I IVkclotara reserve, ovinhiaUv wirh- ! hold from the deed of sale to the i Crown. I His Honor, after henriujr ihe opening remarks. and having awrinined the nature of the defence, said that, this "Wis really a e;*e for argument in tow, hj" thought a ea-e could have heen definitely staled in wri!i»'. p . The pavli'£ should have Idvawn a statement rfl v, !)jt \v;is ad;ni(''.'il. nn.l "'lnt in dispute. He hd n £ooi] Hind to -<'t' Ml" wh'd" thiii'* in order tip it compel shonll f"ll '* e ?n-\ ■>,tycr> upon wha' they intended him to d-c'd- upon. He «nv ro reason why the sliond he called upon to d : <- enver what tile v:*> rallv wa«. Snrdy they could let him know what they were ficrhtin# aVout. Nearly the whole of the nioynm« si'sI a?on was oeeupied in lend argument end in elucidating the position of nf ! fairs, the principal point at issue heing to decide which wn« the heller Hth», that originally panted by the natr*-?, or that hy the "Public Trustee which supplanted Hie origin 1. Ar r TTutchen contended that the title had: r>evrr Veti lawfully cancelled. Hi? TTonor renewed judgment on the •otral point?, proposing to submit l-"e question of neeoun's to the "Registrar.

CLAIM TWx BORROWED MONEY. Michael sued Ellen Mahoney, of JAit'ea, storekeeper, for £250, claim for moneys h'ut. Mr 11. ttpenee appeared for pSaintiii', and -Mr J. K. Wilson (Messrs Wilson uml tirey) for defendant,

Michael Burgess, the plaintiff, said that Mrs Mahoney saw hi:;i first abo-U this money in June, 19M. lie was then about to leave New Zealand foil Africa. After conversation ho offered to lend her £250, and to make arrangements with his tanker for the payment? of this amount, lie gave her two cheques, asking her to tear them up if she did not use them. Interest as fixed at 6 per cent. She represented io him that she -wanted the money in her business to enable her to meet competition. She drew the whole £250 on one cheque. He left. "Ww Zealand for South Africa in -Inly, 1000, and returned in 1004. Saw Mrs Mahoney nt Pat''a on his return. She complained tint "things were had." and she had no money. TTe had often applied to her 'or payment of the money. He «ent her n hill and wroto to her in September, 1005. Saw her subsequently, and she <=aid she would pay him if she could «e!l her Knd at WhangamoTiimia. T.at--»:-blic leased the land to plaintiff's son John Burgess, as the Land Board was pressing her. His son held the adjoining section. He produced an from Mrs Mahonev for hi* son to pay him £OO rents. He obtained the ord »r as a part payment to bring the d-.-bt under the Statute of Limitations. j The defence was a total denial by ; the 'defendant that plaintiff had lent her this money. She was a storekeeper.! [Plaintiff -was then a contractor at Pa-i tea, and was often bx her shop. 'Just I before lie went to South Africa plaintiff j asked her to buy cattle on his bcha'f to be sent up to his son's farm at Whangamomona. leaving her two hlar-k cheques. She purchased the cattle, and sent them up to Whangamomona. by •Wm. Burgess, son of the plaintiff. Aft-ar. sending the cattle to Whangamomona, she knew nothing more of tiiem. Tl>e payment of £9O claimed by the plalTV tiff was explained. Young Burgess owed her some money for rent un''<'tj| lease of her section. She asked th* ■ plaintiff about it. H* l to collect it upon her order. She was not i in need of money. Inviiur ilwnvp be -n | able to pay her bills on the 20th of j each month, and to get the trade dis- j

rnmit. Til" money placed in the Ixvik cli" alloved to remain there until she lenl min-li i-i'i! (he en! t!e. ptonrt tli.it Wm. Tlurueps soM "1 the cattle. Pile received none of the proeee.ls of til" -riles. "t lie ilrfeii'H'l further stilted th it at the tune she h ul 100 ncres cleared on her Whanpairiomnia linldirs. and crown cattle rimnmi r.ii it. so tint it would int have been enimhle of enrrvin? head of yon i ;x stock she and sent to wii \H r n" on W in<ini"l Wm. Unrpew sold her cattle, and vnnn" Sheep with the proceeds. iiad never had an account- fr~m him_. She disposed of the sheep. She leaj-d her place in 1904 to John Burfress fot 3s an acre, or '£llo a year aUo?et- ier. She had never received nnv rent, and she had very frreit dilienltv m fretting him even to pay the rates. T,,ir j oFi senr.. undertook to "knock it. out o. him," find she pive him an order to set the money. She never receiv $j any letter from the plaintiff. who hnd( twice siihsennentlv assured her that ,ie would collect the money from his son for her—that he was expectiDf; a cheque any da v. He had never ref erred to anv deiit owing by her to him. She. had not sued John Burgess, for Ac considered he was not then worih the trnnliie. The plaintiff had never implied to her for the payment of any money. She had given Burgess a veThal account of the expenditure 0 f his £250.

To Mr Spencer Burgess never asfcevl - li.m- for Minni'V. She had often seen the plaintiff in "Paten.. Phe had nev?i) previously bought stork. John fcur* gess tnhl her on the Patea railway station that he had paid the £OO rent . Si'ie rorpived CI1" n<-tt from th» -.'l-" of the sheep. Mr Spence cabled William Burgess in r {rebuttal When the plaintiff went to _ Africa. witness knew hi- fither ""'as advancing money to Mrs Mali on ey for th*3 purchase of rattle for her own property. Mrs Mahoney "was not correct in her statement that the rattle were bought for him (witness). He remembered driving some lots of cattle from Patea to Mrs Mahoney's land. On one occasion she took him to see some sht> <. had purchased, and he told her ''lC could have bought morn cheaply nenrer home, TTe branded these cattle "1..1 . v dilTerent from the brand used on their own rattle. TTe plaeed Mrs Mahoney s rattle on her own place. T.os-cs vt?vt\ severe in 1001. TTe 10-d half of li : =. ITe detailed the disposal of the catt'o. most of them having been sold in lo's wilh his own "to make up a deewt line." TTe informed Mrs Mahoney of all sales. She had agreed In th» yAM sales. TTe conhl give no dates. TTe sold all her rattle, and storked the place with about 300 sheep. TTe \vs notpaid as manager, but only by the chv for work done on the place. To My Wilson: Wag not paid for looking after the place. TTe wrote the letter produced, offering to do this for P l'2 a yenv and for everv eight hour-' work. Mrs Mahoney's eatf'e did not run indi-mmniatelv with 'ih own. TTe had never had a final '*s<|;iari'lg up*' with Mr* Mnhonev. *rhf» nl-iintilT was re-called. TTis TTonor ■wanted him to e\pliin how the C4O! reet'ived from his son was i i!p. Tie considered tli-f I'l" plain- ' til". if a sirti'jhiforward man, woiiM Ttol have resorted to triekery in orW • to secure an acknowledgment of the debt from "Mrs Mnhonev before IV' hv Vears' e\piry. The whole ra«e hinged ■ on this matter, and there wa- nothing ■ to 'liow the nature of plaintiff's irans- > actions with his son.

IN DIVORCE. Arthur John Taylor v. IMizabcth T.tylor,—ln this case the petitioner had obtained an order for the restitution all conjugal rights. The wife had not re turned home.—The petition for divovce was granted, to be made absolute in three months.