"MOKAU" JONES AGAIN.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 January 1917, Page 7

"MOKAU" JONES AGAIN.

A SOLICITOR'S EXPENSES. QUESTION OF ABILITY TO PAY. Reference to the famous "Mokau" .Tones ea-e was made ii| the course of civil proceedings, lienril before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., in Hie Magistrate's Court yesterday. R. Clinton Mn«lu*s, solicitor New T'lymoirth (Mr. a. i[. Johnstone)' soughte to recover from Joshua Jones, settler, of Waitara, (Mr. A. A. Bennett)' the sum of £5 2s (id, being an instalment due by the defendant to plaintiff on a judgment summons entered in favor of plaintiir in May last. Defendant bad confessed judgment for £Ol 10s 3d, in respect of legal expenses incurred in connection with various transactions in which plainti/1 had assisted him in the last eight years. The ease luwl previously been heard in defendant's .absence, ami Mr. Bennett applied for a re-hearing on the ground that defendant's absence on the last occasion was due to an accident. No objection was raised, the necessary leave was granted, and the case was proceeded with.

Mr. -P. B. Fitzhorbert askwl for leave to represent defendant's wife and children, as it was understood trust moneys in which they had an interest were involved in tlhe suit, and it was important that their interest should not be prejudiced.

Mr. Johnstone said the onus was on defendant to show that since the date of the judgment he had had no moneys with which to pay the debt other than what was necessary for the maintenance of his wife and familv.

Mr. Bennett showed that it was not necessary for Air. Fitzhorbert to remain, and the latter retired.

The defendant pave evidence that he had confessed-judgment for tho full amount claimed, and that he had agreed to pay in instalments of £5 2s fid per month . His only income, lie said, consisted of £2O per month, which he received from the Government for the maintenance of his wife and family. He had not received fi farthing from hi* son, Walter Jones. When the Mokau Estate was cut up, 500 acres were allocated to his son', Walter, who had no business connection with witness. There were ten in witness' family, and his :.ife and two daughters were dependent upon him. He bad no rent to pay, but his wife's house, in which he lived, was mortgaged. Witness gave his wife £5, and each of his two daughters £5, per month. He had no money with which to pay the debt. Witness produced a number of unpaid doctors' and drapers' bills. Mr. Johnstone: Is it not a fact that you have mode up your mind that you will not pay Mr. Hugfhes?— I That is not so. Tf the Court compels me to pay, I will pay. Have you paid any grocery bills?— Yes, for my wife. Have you paid any other accounts in the last six months?—Xo, I don't thinkso.

Have you had '£"> 2s fid above what was necessary to maintain yourself and family during the last six months?—l have had to pass the money on to my wife fend daughters. Witness made utterances casting aspersions on Mr. Hughes, and counsel proceeded with his cross-examination. Did not two other solicitors turn you down before Mr. Hughes consented to act for you?—Xo.

Has not Mr. Hughes acted for you for thirty years?— Yes.

In answer to Mr. Bennett, defendant said lie was 7(5" years of age. His memory was as good a.s -could be expected. Mr. Bennett: What is the money paid to you for?— For the maintenance of my wife and children.

The Magistrate: Why should the Government maintain this man's family. Mr. Beraiott read a Parliamentary order, which showed that £ISOO had been handed to the Public Trustee to defendant's credit for valuable services the latter had rendered in arranging pea-ee between the Maoris and the white people in the King Country. Cabinet afterwards decided to pay defendant £2O per month in consideration of these services until -the matter was further dealt with by Parliament.

The .Magistrate: Who could prevent defendant putting the whole of the money into his own pocket, and doing what .-lie liked with it? Mr. Bennett: The order for the money could be revoked.

The Magistrate: It seems to me that if tiliere were a surplus after adequate maintenance for his wife and family had been provided, that the plaintiff's cltum must be met, whether there was a trust or not.

Counsel for plaintiff read a letter written by defendant's counsel, in which it was admitted that if a surplus wore shown after adequate maintenance had been provided, the defendant would bo in difficulties. It was after that letter had been written that tlve question of trust moneys arose.

Defendant: The whole of the £2O is absorbed in maintenance.

Mr. Bennett: Ilow long will the allowance continue?—I can't say.

Will it continue after the ;CISW) paid to the Public Trustee is exhausted?—l cunt say.

The Magistrate: Then the Court wants evidence to show what becomes of the £2O per month. .Defendant tonld give no enlightenment on this point beyond his evidence that lie paid the money to his wife and daughters. In order to give one of the daughters an opportunity of being present to give evidence the hearing was adjourned for three weeks.