CLAIMS FOR JEWELLERY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10647, 31 May 1912, Page 3

CLAIMS FOR JEWELLERY.

JUDGMENT FOR BOTH SIDES

A REGRETTABLE CASE

At the Masterton S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr L. G. Hold, S.M., Herbert William Pownall, of MasDortoii, executor in the estate of Charles Aylmer Pownall, late of Masterton, solicitor, deceased, and Alice E. Pownall, claimed from Ettie Gaisford, of Masterton, wife of Russell Gaisford, of Morton, sheepfarmer, certain goods and chattels —viz., a kiwi mat valued at £25, one emerald and diamond marquis ring valued at £35, and one gladstone bag valued at £3, which defendant wrongfully retains and .refuses to hand over to the plaintiif, or, if possession cannot be had, the plaintiff claims the sum of £63, the value of the said goods. Mr Harold Cooper, of Palmerston North, appeared tor the plaintifF, and Mr B. J. Dolan, cf Napier, for defendant.

Herbert-William Pownall stated that the kiwi mat was the property of his wife, and was presented by ,'nis-brother to her in May, 1910. It remained in her possession till January, 1911, and, was, ou the request of his 'brother, lent to the latter. His brother subsequently told him that it had been used in connection with a haka. He valued it at £25, but it might have been worth anything up to £IOO. The mat was, he thought, in the possession of Mrs Gaisford. She had since had her photograph taken in it. The marquise j-ing was the property of the late Mrs C. A. Pownall. He had subsequently seen it on the finger of Mrs Gaisford. He had not seen the ring for about six months. Mrs Gaisford defied having had the ring. The -gladstone. tag belonged to the late .Mr C. A. Pownall. "Mrs ; GafeM'd ■ had- tite- 7 hag'; he'''hail ■seen her with it oh SaturdayJast* Mrs Gaisford had promised to send tho big to his place. Cross-examined' >by Mr Dolan : He was aware that divorce proceedings were pending, and he believed that his lata brother had been mentioned as corespondent. Tho estate was paying Mr Cooper's expenses, and not Mr Gaisford. He had first made a demand . for the mat, ring and gladstone btaig J from Mrs Gaisford in his office about j a week after iris brother's deaths Mr« i Gaisford had said that the mat liaa belonged to her having been given to her by the late Mr Pownall. Witness denied that he had stated that ho had , told • Mrs\Ga isford tbajr she could keep the mat when the latter said that it ' belonged to her. He'also denied th.;t all he had demanded was, tbv re turn of two brooches as they belongyl Ip somGonc else. He had nevor sinteel •that he would gi-veupthe rings to Mrs Gaisforc. iaftor his return. :rom W<\lingtcn. He had promisod to help Mrs Gaisford in her divorce procei'dmgs, rending a satisfactory settleruent of tho present dispute. Un j>ad told Mr Cullen, who was acting for Mrs Gaisford, that he would not give up the rings until the ownership had been proved. He had suggested that he be sued for them. He denied having stated that George Ellers could have certain clothes belonging to his late brother. He had endeavoured to bring about a settlement on several occasions.

Alice E. Pownall, wife of Herbert Pownall, said that she had had possession of the marquise rfog on and off for some time. The kiwi mat had been given to her by the late Mr C. A. Pownall about May, 1910. The late Mr Pownall had sent for the mat on the occasion of a fete held in the Mas- > terton Park. i Oross-examinel-by Mr Dolan: She did not,know who was going, to pay her expenses in .the •case. She.'had J asked for the m:at,and Mr Pownall had said "Its all right, Alice; tho mat will come back safely." Wituecs and the late Mr Pownall . were on friendly terms. The deceased bad ' stayed at her house on and off, and she 'had heard tlhat when not ;nt her house, he had stayed with M.rs Ghis ford. She had" not had the rings claimed by Mrs Gaisford in her pos- | ■ession. I

John Joseph Kelliher, commission agent in Masterton, said that he was formerly in the employ of the late Mr Powai.aH. He had seen Mrs Gaisford wearing the marquise ring frequently. Just before the death of Mr Pownall, Mrs Kelliher had pressed the deceased's clothes and in one pocket their were two rings, neither of which were the marquise ring. The rings had subsequently heen handed over to H. W. Pownall. No request had been made by Mr C. A. Pownall that the rings should be given to Mrs Gaisford.

This concluded the evidence for the plaintiffs. . Ethel Louise Gaisford, wife of R.us r sell Gaisford, : of Marton, said thatabout eighteen montihs ago she was ■ living with her mother and fa therein Sussex Street. She was friendly with the late Mr C. A. Pownall. One morning the deceased had -asked witness if sho would like a kiwi mat, and she had replied in the affirmative. The mat was sent down in a motor-car with Jim Hall. Mr Pownall had never told her that it was only a gift. She kept the mat about eighteen months, and as she was short of money she sold 'her rings and mats to !hsr mother for £3O, on the under standing that they could be re-purchased. She never had the marquise ring. Mr Pownall had stated that it was the last gift he had received from his late wife, and had expressed a wish that it should be given to Mr Kenneth Mcintosh or the family, \ After the death of Mr C. A. Pownall she 3nad~been present at Mr C. A. Pownall's office for the purpose of a friendly settlement,-Mr H. W. Pownall being there. ■'Witness explained about the kiwi- mat, and Mr Pownall said that she was entitled to it.

Further, he had stated that she could keep the gladstone bag, and that the clothes would "do for George." Cross-examined by Mr Cooper: She , never had the marquise ring, notwnth- ; standing what Mr Kelliher and Mr H. W. Pownall had stated to the effect that they had seen it on lier finger. The only' rcason she should suggest for Mr C. A. Pownall giving her the mat was because sho was the favourite girl of the late Miss Legg, to whom he had j previously given it. Garew T. Ellers, Native agent of Masterton, said that ho had known the late Mr Pownall for twenty-nine years, and when witness was in Klonilyke he had acted as guardian to his family. He gave similar evidence as the previous witness in regard to the kiwi mat. The gladstone bag had been given to them. M. Ellers, wife of previous witness, gave similar evidence to her husband. ° Georgo H. Cullen, solicitor, of Masterton, said that about the end of January Mrs Gaisford .consulted him about two rings- wnich' w'efe in the possession ,of Mr H. W. Pownall. He

had seen Mr Pownall about the rings and tho latter said that lie would give up tho rings if certain articles were returned to him. Mrs Gaisford Jiad said that she had not the marquise ring, and suggested that it might bo found in Mr C. A. Pownall's red waistcoat. Ho mentioned this to Mr H. W. Pownall, and the latter subsequently told him that the ring was ,not in tho waistcoat. Ho 'bad suggested an amicable settlement and from Mr Pownall's attitude after the conference he gathered that the matter Jiad been settled. Mr Pownall said that when he returned from Wellington he would see about the rings, but subsequently stated that he did not feel) inclined to giro up the rings. J. J. Kelliher, recalled, said ho was he had seen om Mrs Gaisford finger. There could be no mistake about tiie ring. I This concluded tho case. ( Mr B. J. Dolan then addressed the Court, Mr Cooper replying. In the case in which Mrs Elers claimed from H. W. Pownall the return of a diamond ring land a pearl I ring, the plaintiff, on oath, stated that she gave £3O to her daughter (Mrs > Gaisford) and received two rings. In ' answer to a question as to whether the rings were tho rings in question/ witness answered in the affirmative. Mr Dolan: Will your daughter get tho ringn back? Witness: Yes, if she is able to pay fo/ them. j Mr Cooper: Did she get any receipt ? Witness: Xo, she was my daughter, and my receipt was not necessarv Witness also stated that the last time she saw the rings was when her daughter was wearing them, sonr; time before Mr Pownall died. Mr Cooper: Do you know who-" your daughter got tho rings? Witness: I thought she got them from her husband. G. H. Cullen, asked by Mr Cooper ' if he had seen the rings in question, said that lie had a faint recollection of handling a ring with five diamonds, which would be valued at about £SO. Mr Cooper then called William Pownall in reference to a conversation i the latter had with'Mr Cullen in reference to the ownership of the rings. Mr Cooper: Have you any idea whose the rings are? Witness: The diamond ring was worn by my brother- a year ago, and ' the pearl ring up to two years ago. Mr Cooper: How did lie get the.~i. rings? Witness: I have no idea. ■■■-'■ Mr Cooper: There was no evidence that they, belonged to Mrs Gaisford? Witness: None whatever.'-' " - Mr Dolan.: Mr Cullen asked you to hand over these rings.' ' Witness :• He did nothing . of the .sort, and never t meflti9ned name. .-.---.. . Mr Dolan: Did you say you would give the rings up? Witness: Yes, when I was satisfied that they were her property. Joseph Kelliher, confidential clerk in the employ of the late Mr C. A. : Pownall, asked whether he had seen the rings in question, answered in the affirmative, and Stated that he had seen Mr Pownall wearing the rings for several months at «a time. Mr Cooper: Had you any reason to suppose to whom they belonged. Witness: No. Mrs Gaisford called and claimed tho rings. Mr Dolan : Did Mrs Gaisford call for the rings before Mr Pownall's death? Witness: Yes. His Worship said that the evidence of the last witness must be regarded as important. The case was ia very regrettable one, and he was sorry it had come to Court at all. It was evident that part of the property belonged to plaintiff, and part to defendants. Mr Pownall 'had established 1 a .claim to the marquise ring, the > mat and the gladstone bag, which he would order to be returned; or value given. The claim that the diamond and pearl rings belonged to Mrs Elers was also established, and he would order their, return ,or value. No costs would be allowed, except counsel's fee of one guinea in each ca.se in respect to an adjournment.