AN INTERESTING CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10185, 10 March 1911, Page 6

AN INTERESTING CASE.

A COOK'S HOLIDAY.

CLAIM FOR RETURN OF CHEQUES.

A case in which considerable interest was taken was heard at the Magistrate's Court, in Carterton, yesterday, before m.v L. G. lieid, S.M., when Harry Ross, a station cook in the Gladstone district, claimed from William Young, licensee of /the Gladstone Hotel, the return of two cheques amounting to £39 6s 2d, or their value, and a ■phonograph and records, valued at £l2. Mr P. L. Hollings appeared -for plaintiff, and defendant was represented by Mr D. G. Smart. Henry Ross, plaintiff, said he was cook at Kararau sltation, about four miles from the Gladstone Hotel. Witness went to the Gladstone Hotel the day before Christmas, and stayed half an hour, and then went away. His next visit to \tihe hotel Was on January 2nd. He had a cheque with him for £23 6s, wliich he 'handed over the counter to Mrs Young, the. proprietor's wife. He had sundry drinks,and did not remember receiving change for the cheques. He stayed' there from January 2nd to January 13th, and was drinking all the tiina. Defendant and his wife served him. He had been at the hotel about a week, when he felt ill, and Mr Young took him to Dr Johnston in his own gig. He was taken back to the hotel, and stayed there till he went away, on January 13th. On January Bth another cheque, 'amounting to £l6 6s, was handed to him by Itllie manager of the station. Jliis cheque he gave to Mrs Young, and' received no change. On January 13th defendantgot one of his men to drive him back to the station. He had no money. He remembered getting £1 to pay a Maori named Thomas Isaacs, while he was at the hotel. Mr Young drove to the station and got witness' phonograph. He did not* make a present of it to anyone, so far as he could remember. There were about 70 records with the machine. The machine and records cost over £9, and other records given him made up the value Ito £l2. Some days after witness got back to the station, he..wrote to Mrs Young and asked what he owed her, and had a reply' (produced), which stated ithere was nothing owing by witness. He never, until he went Ito counsel, had any account of what became of the cheques. Witness instructed counsel to write for an account of wha'ifc had become of the cheques, and a statement of what he owed'. (Counsel alt this stage produced the statement from Mrs Young, which included £7 given to Maoris, Br Johnston 13s, and gig hire 7s 6d, £lB 10s 6cl spent in drink, and £7 account owing previously.) Witness said he was 1 ill for days after he left the hotel.

The -witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr Smart. For the defence-, James ' Wright Mcßae, farmer, Mastenton, said he remembered medting Ross at the Gladstone Hotel about-January' 12th. After some conversation Ross told him that" Young had '- treated him very well. He thought of going to Wellington, but had'' decided to remain. Mrs Young had been very good to him, a<nd he had made her a present of a phonograph, as it got qui his nerves. Ross was not drank, and lie (witness) end some business 'with him the satmo day. Witness called on Ross on 6th February aaid took back his horse aaid gig. Ross told witness he was advised by some one on the station to take action to recover his money. Benjamin Brodie, aerated water manufadturer, Mastterton, said he met Ross at Gladstone on January 14th. Witness was taking a-gig out for Mr Mcßae. Ross asked witness what he thought of the gramaphone he had given to Mrs Young as a present for looking after him. Ross took delivery of the horse and gig, and appeared to be quiite sober. Witness; isaw Ross again on. March 6th, in company with Mcßae. Ross, stated that, it was a case of "lambing down," and he wjould settle for half the money if he got back the phonograph. Walter Ladner, cabinet-maker, Masterton, remembered 'being alt the Gladstone Hotel on January 14th, and saw Ross there. Ross was talking to Brodie, and said he had given a phonograph to Mrs Young. Rosis appeared to be quite sober, and' ".shouted" a few times in the presence of witness. Cornelius John Croft, ploughman!, Gladstone, said he knew Ross well. Had met him at the Gladstone Hotel on the second Sunday in January. Witness stayed at the hotel a week, and was in the company of Ross.. There was a good deal of drinking, but no one was drunk. Witness Avould swear that he;thad: seen Ross with money in his possession, and paying for drinks. There was noth-

itig wrong with tlie man. Witness saw Ross lend a -sovereign to a man named Addie and ito a Maori, and a few -shillings to some children. James Addie, gardener, Gladstone, remembered meeting Ross at the Gladstone Hotel early in January. He was sober, and paid some money lis owed him. Ellen Young, wife of the licensee of the Gladstone Hotel, said that Ross stayed at the hotel fourteen days, and left on January loth. Witness was in the har when Ross came in. He asked for a drink, and gave a cheque for £23 Os 2d. Ross told her to take out £7 Is, amount owing for liquor previously supplied. She did this, and paid Ross the balance. Ross was in the company of two men named Sutherland and Miles. Ross tokl her to provide these men with everything they required, both for board and drinks, ' and he would pay for it. The phonograph was made a present to her by Ross, who bothered Mr Young until he wont for the machine. He spent money freely, and witness saw liim give £1 to a native and also money to others.„ After Ross had been there some days he said ho wanted to see a doctor, and Mr Young drove him , to. Carterton. .The second cheque was cashed by witness, and at Boss' request she deducted the amount owing by him for board, and gave Ross the difference in cash. When Ross went they parted on the be?/t of terms. Ross afterwards wrott© and asked how much he owed. Subsequently she received a letter from Hollings and _ragneli. i His ; Worship said there was a good deal of unsatisfactory evidence: Pkiutiff had stated that he could remember nothing, but . independent witnesses had said that he could remember a great many filings. The man had spent a good deal of money, far more than he ought to have done. The evidence that the cheques had been cashed •could not be disregarded. There was a poi'tion of the evidence which would have to be taken notice of in another quarter. Plaintiff would be nonsuited, with- , out costs.