Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MELHOSE V. SLATOR.

(To the Editor.)

[advertisement. ]

Sir, —In reference to your report of this case in Friday's issue, which1 was the hearing of a judgment summons, in summing up the magistrate admitted that no evidence had been adduced as to my ability to pay this claim (a state of thing 3 which is not unusual with quite a number of people ab the present time), which amounts to over £22 —this should sufficiently absolve me in the eyes of the public. In my evidence I stated that I had borrowed from a friend sufficient money to satisfy so much of the claim as I had, agreed to do. This surely is evidence that J was willing to put myself about to do the right thing. The magistrate made the order on the following grounds, which J submit he should not have done merely oh; the evidence before him:—"That he was; not satisfied that the furniture bona fide, belonged to my family, and thought that1 the transfer of Cambria shares was done in1 order to defeat this claim." As to the latter ground the facts were as sworn to by me, that the shares were purchased with ; nay wife's money, and put with some others ■ in my name for convenience, and after-! wards transferred to her (this was done before completion of judgment), she having, a separate estate entirely outside my control. As to the former ground, the magisj: trate made a point of the statement, in my particulars of demand against Melhose that the furniture belonged to me. This was! done merely for convenience, and to avoid j the unpleasantness of dragging females into Court on what was in reality merely a sideissue, and not of the gist of the action at) all. Dr. Giles also appeared to make a great dqal of my statement that the word: 5s was not in the agreement at the time of; my signing it, whereas whab I really! should ha\e said was that it was explained that 4s would be the amount which I should have to pay, and relying on Mr Cousins aaj an old friend, signed without reading the document, so that what might appear to, be a contradiction was not so in reality. My desire is to set myself right in the eyes of those who have not had dealings'with me. lam not afraid of the opinion of those who have.— Yours, &c,

J. Slatoe.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS18880717.2.47

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 167, 17 July 1888, Page 5

Word Count
406

MELHOSE V. SLATOR. Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 167, 17 July 1888, Page 5

MELHOSE V. SLATOR. Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 167, 17 July 1888, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert