FLAT, EMPHATIC CONTRADICTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 95, 19 May 1909, Page 4

FLAT, EMPHATIC CONTRADICTION.

TWO WOMEN IN COURT. Whether or not Mrs A. Callow, wife of A. E. Callow, residing in Lemon-street, New Plymouth, ordvred and received from Miss M. A. Wake, of Christcliiirch, a piece of Torchon lace, which the hitfjr lady rallied at £2 3s, was the riddle which Mr. H. S. Kitzhcrbert, S.M., had to solve in the Magistrate's Court yesterdav. Not a very big matter, certainly, but the case wai remarkable for the unfaltering and flat denial of the purchase by the alleged purchaser and her absolute denial oi' an alleged conversation with an independent lady witness. Mr. C. Wright appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. A. H. Johnstone for the defendant. The plaintiff did not appear, and her Story was not in evidence. She relied on the evidence of Mrs, Hall, of Cour-tenay-street, who said she knew tb.2 plaintiff, and had on a date mentioned received a letter from her, requesting Jier to call on Mrs. Callow. In order to keep wfthin the rule* of evidence, she wis Induced to say that "in consequence of something".she called on Mrs. Callow. A lady came to the door. "Mrs. Callow!" enquired the visitor. "Yes; will you come in, please." So she went in. "I have had a letter from Mists AVake," began the visitor, "and she told me that she had written to you, too." The lady of the house admitted the receipt of the letter, but protested that at the moment she couldn't pay the amount asked for. She had just spent her allowance, she explained, and was too unwell to go to the bank to draw on her account. "At the same time," explained the witness, '•she told me she had been out driving, contrary to the doctor's orders." The defendant told her, too, that she couldn't ask her husband for tfcV'moner, for She didn't want hint to know she had Spent so much on a piece of lace. She »lso confessed that she had felt inclined : to return the lace,' which was lying unused in a drawer. But if she didn't go to Sydney soon, and if she didn't have to undergo a surgical operation, she would send the money during the next month to Miss Wake herself. The conversation might have gone on indefinitely, but that wituess' husband was waiting' at the gate,, To Mr. Johnstone,'the witness said she knew nothing of the matter anterior to this interview, and was not pecuniarily interested. The defence was that the defendant had never agreed to purchase the goods, and had never received them. The dfefendantls story was that Miss Wake came to see her with another lady and I arranged to have a costume made just before last Christmas. She did not keep the appointment; but came to the house in January to apologise for her remissness. At the time the defendant was . ill, and Miss Wake was admitted onlv : because she said she was leaving the town shortly. In the room Mhss Wake also complained of a faihtness, so—and the witness! could aot he prevented from bringing in this .little tit-bit of evidence produced some .brandy, and the visitor "had a good strong drink of it." Then Miss Wake unsuccessful canvassed her for an order for some lace on account of her brother, in England. The defendant understood from Miss Wake that She was on a two years' tour of the world., She, denied flatly that she had ever deen ills. Hall. Mr. Wright asked Mrs. Hall to stand up. iSlie did so. "And do you still deny that this lady . ca'Jed at your house!" asked counsel. • If she called, she must have seen mv maid, or my nurse. I never saw he'r until this morning," answered the defendant. The Stipendiary' Magistrate whilst emphasising that lie. did not disbelieve ■ ,?• . 1 ! alls testimony, said that tli» plaintiff had not established her ea«e fche would be nonsuited, with costs, including a guinea for defending counsel