DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2172, 16 December 1885, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

MASTERTON-WEDNESDAY.-Before Pis Honor Judge Davy. greathead v Standen (Administratrix in the estate of the late Robert Greathead.) Claim£l3s, money lent. Mr C. P. Skipper for plaintiff; Mr W. G. Beard for defendant, Mr Skipper,in opening up the caae,aaid several money transactions had taken ' place between plaintiff and his brother ' who kept tho Hurunuiorangi Hotel. Defendant was the widow of the late Robert Greathead, and had married since : a Mr Standon. It was admitted that Mrs' Standen was tho Administratrix. TT«

would call on the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Geo. Greathead, deposed that ho claimed the monoy from the estate of his late brother Robert Greathead, as balance of the sum of £l?46s Gd money lent (cheque produced.) Witness said the signature to the cheque was his, . the body of the cheque being in the writing of Mr Snodgrass, who was Manager at the Bank of New Zealand at Carterton at the time. He had a fixed deposit in the Bank at Napier, and this was the amount which he transferred to Carterton, The cheque was handed: to Mr Snodgrass to send through to .Napier, He took no recoipt from his brother for ' \ that amount. Several transactions afterwards took place, and in May they balanced accounts, which left the amount claimed, for which his brother gave him an 1.0. U. (produced). His brother met with an accident very : shortly afterwards, which caused his V death. He had not been paid the monoy. He had some correspondence with defendant oil the matter. In Pebuary 1880, he received tho letter produced from Mrs Standen, in which she acknowledged the existence of the 1.0. U., and promised to pay it, and stated she had received letters of administration, and would receive, all monies and pay all claims. A letter in October 1880, further stated that if he would take £IOO for his claim she (Mrs Standen) would pay him. ' Cross-examined by Mr Beard: He in* structed Mr Snodgrass to lodge the amount to his brother's account) His brother asked him for the loan of tho monoy to meet a bill to Mr Joseph Vile, to whom he was indebted for the sum of £200,.. Ho did not get any receipt from his brother, as it was. paid through tho Bank. He told his brother that his. money was on fixed deposit at. 6£ per cent. His brother offered to give him 8 per cant, but witness said he did not want any interest, Several people knew that he had lent his brother money. He drew oash from his brother from time to time after thiß. Defendant knew that he had lent the money. She was the first person who told him that her husband had received the money from Napier, He had nothing but money transactions with his brother, He paid for his drinks, and his brother said he could stay with him without payment for board and lodging to make up for the interest on the V money lent him. It wai because he was ft leaving the district that they squared up ' accounts, A statement of accounts was made up between them froifl Robert Greathead's books and written on, ,a piece of paper. fliß brother made out the 1.0. U. and gave jt to him to show the transaction, and he left for Napier the same afternoon, It did not strike him to <?et a witness to the. signature of his brother, as it was a transaction betwoen brothers. He did not come back from Napier till after his! brother's death. He saw no advertisement ro claims in tho estate. Ho had never produced the 1.0. U. to Mrs Standon; He had been asked to produce it by her solicitor (Mr Beard) in a letter dated May 1881. He kept the 1.0. U. himself, and wrote to Mr Board that he had it in hH possession. .'He had only been once'dowfl from Napier since his brothors toth, until the present time. He told Mr Bright that he did no.t seo the force ol showing the 1.0. U. to Mrs Stolen.'He did not take proceedings to recover the claim because they promised to arrange}'' and when they failed to do so, ho was not able to leave the district where he was, (Left Sitting.)