AUCKLAND WILL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 205, 27 August 1904, Page 3

AUCKLAND WILL CASE.

THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE.

The Edmonds will case was continued before His Honor Judge Edwards yesterday afternoon, when Henry Edmonds, the principal defenda-nt, concluded his evidence. Mr Edmonds denied the truth of _ac statement he was alleged to bare made: "We can trust the girls, the business is ours." There was no suggestion at any time that the business belonged to his sisters and younger brother, and at the time of his mother's death it was not suggested that the business formed part of her estate. About four years ago, his brother Ernest told him he had a share in the business. "You. know you haven't," witness replied, reminding him. that shortly after the mother's death he had told his sisters that he expected nothing out of the business except wages. Arthur left the store on October 21st last year without saying anything to his friends about where he was going. While he was away witness found that some money had been abstracted and a false entry made in the cash-book. Arthur came hack after a month's absence, and witness asked him if he bad been tampering with the banking account. Arthur replied that he had, and asked whether he was to be allowed to come back to his employment Arthur took up a " v bo__-ci_g" attitude, and made out that he couki do. witness some damage by taking an oflice down at the wharf. Then there followed what the witness described as ''a painful scene," in which the typewriter was overturned and Arthur knocked him down. Nothing was mentioned about a pi-rtnership during the altercation. That night he wrote Arthur a letter saying that he would forget what had passed and would take him back if he would apply himself to business. Arthur tame back, but witness would not allow him to continue his old duty of buying gum. A few days later Arthur asked if he was to have a share in the business. "Certainly not," witness replied, and Arthur then asked him for increased wage_, which were also refused. Arthur did not .eturn to the store after this. After his mother's death witness continued to keep up the Graham-street house until November, 1899, the expenditure being £94 10/10. None of this was charged to his mother's estate. Before November, 1599, attempts were made to sell the GTahamstrect property in accordance with the terms of the will. He offered it to the Kauri Timber Co. for £800, but they ref___rl, as also did the Gas Go., near whose works the house stood, lie proposed that he should purchase the house himself, and there were many conversations with his sisters on the subject. It was proposed that he should live at Graham-street, that Dora and Alice should live with his family and receive 5/ each per week to assist in the house. They knew that they had an interest in the property under their mother's" will, and he distinctly told them about the mortgage. The price he proposed was £550, and the mortgage was £470. Each sister's share was to be £20, payable when they ■were married. That arrangement was agreed to. He spent £314 on additions to the Graham-street house, and carried out repairs, the total expenditure being £375 17/ C. Then they all lived at the house, and he treated his sisters well, though there were the usual family jars. The brothers never remonstrated about his treatment of the girl 3. Alice and Dora left the house, but there was no quarrel, and he was quite wiUing to continue to main tain them. At 4.15 o'clock the witness concluded lus evidence, and Mr J. C. Martin's cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff was adjourned until this morning. TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. Continuing his evidence this morning under examination by Mr Campbell, defendant said Arthur received casual wages for casual work up to March, 1890, when he began to receive regular wages. The only asset realised in the mother's estate, except .pecifie bequests, was the Graham-street property. No accounts of the estate were given to the beneficiaries nor asked for by them. His Honor- remarked that the plaintiff had asked how much was due to her. Defendant: And I told her £ 8 10/. His Honor: But you have not paid it to her. Mr Campbell: It wa3 tendered to Mr Jackson Palmer before this action was begun. Witness: That is so. To Mr Campbel: He knew nothing of any meeting of the brothers after the funeral, when the putting up of the name of the business was said to have •been discussed. If any sucli meeting was held, he was not present, lie gave las employees bonuses one year, and his brothers received bonuses like the others. In other years they received Christmas boxes. To Mr Martin: His father at the time of his death owed witness £ 183. The gum business, he inferred, became his own right from the start, by reason of bis mother handing him the insurance money, by his carrying on the business in his own name, and by signing his name to Mr Shipley, which rendered him responsible for £500. His mother was in good health when she made her will after his father's death; in fact, better than before. Mr Martin: Do you ask the Court to believe that at that time your mother, having three young children dependent on her, handed over to you the business and the life assurance money, which was not available for the debts of the business, but was available for her to maintain the children? Witness: I do. His Honor: You say you •'interred" the business was yours. Did your mother ever actually say it was yours? Witness: Yes. His Honor: When? Witness: Six months before her death. His Honor: Then up to that time it was not yours. Witness: I inferred it was mine all the time. Witness added that about si-_ months before her death bis mother said to him, '"The business is yours. Had you not better have the deeds made over to you?" He replied that this was not necessary, as everything was in his name. It was agreed between him and his pio-her that he should pay her 30/ a week, together with the insurance and mortgage expenses on her house. Mr' Martin: Did you not, right up to her death, bring your mother forward in your books as a creditor for £489, the amount of the insurance money? Witness admitted that he kept the amount distinct from other items of the capital. Mr. Martin: She appears as one of the creditors. Witness admitted that this was so according to the books up to July, 1896,

after which the item did not appear. Bis mother died in December, 18S_. __is Honor suggested that the explanation of the entry was that witness was really carrying on the business for his mother, but iv order to protect her from the creditors it was thought advisable to make her appear as a creditor. Witness denied that this was the case. Mr. Martin: Why did your mother give you the Brown-street property, worth £200? Witness: To recoup the deficit on the estate. . . Recoup to whom? — To mc, who had paid the creditors. Mr. Cam?bell: He paid out more than he received. Mr. Martin: Did you pay out any money except what you made from the' business?— No. Then why should your mother give you the Brown-street property? —Because it was one of the assets of the estate, and witness added that it was also because of his mother's great joy at his paying off the £500 to Shipley, which greatly reduced tlie capital of the business. There were aiso losses in the | business at that time, 1892—1595, and the bank was pressing for their mart: gage on the Grahame-street property. He, therefore, asked, "Had you not better convey the Brown-street property to mc as an asset against the liabilities?" She agreed, and did so. His Honor: How did that benefit her? Mr Martin: The business, you say, was already yours? Witness said it was because the business was not panning out right. His Honor: But if there had been a profit you would have had it; why should you not also take the loss? It would have been better for her to sell the property. His Honor also pointed out that Shipley was paid in 1892. Why should his mother rejoice % over it to the extent of £200 in 1895? Witness said he thought he had a right to the property as one of the assets. Perhaps he was wrong. His Honor: It was right only on the assumption that the business was your mother's. Mr Martin proceeded to point out that the deed concerning the transfer of the Brown-street property purported it to be made in consideration of a sum of £200. Witness said he did not know this. His Honor remarked that a conveyance made out of '"pure love and affection" would be liable to a duty stamp of £10. Was the £200 consideration put in to reduce the stamp duty? Witness could not explain. His Honor: Don't you consider that you still owe the £200. Witness said it had not occurred to him that he did. Mr Martin then pointed out that up to the time of his mother's death he kept a ledger account headed "S. J. •Edmonds." In this account he credited £220 from the Brown-street property. His Honor again asked witness to explain his reason for crediting his mother with the £489. and witness said he could not do so. except that it was by way ef record. Mr Martin: I>m't you see that your hooks are entirely ,in_onsisbent with your own story, but entirely consistent with the story o_ the plaintiff's witnesses-? Mr Martin then asked: Why have you entered your own drawings as wages? Witness replied that it was for some reason connected with bhe income tax. M_ Campbell: It is quite a common thing. Witness said his own wages were debited to himself, but hi. brothers' wages were entered in tbe charges account. To Mr Martin: Arthur never gave monetary assistance to the business. It ■was ridiculons to say he did. The cash-book for 1892 was produced, and an item on page 128 for August pointed out recording receipt of £ 100 from Arthur. This, the witness explained, was a sum which Arthur handed to hkn to keep for him for convenience, as he believed Arthur had no banking account. It had nothing to do with the business. His Honor: There are savings banks here. Where was the convenience. Mr Martin: 1 suggest it was withdrawn from the hank to pay to you. Witness said it was entered as paid hfl'Ck on Nov. Ist. Mr Martin: I suggest that in February. 1892, your brother assisted you with £14 12/. Witness objected to the word "assisted." but admitted receipt of the money and its repaymenT the same niontb. Mr Martin pointed out that on June 13th. 1892, was an entry that witness received £50 from Arthur, and on a later date £30. "Do you." asked Mr ?_artin, -'still adhere to your statement that he never assisted you?" Witness said it was so long ago that he could not say now whether he did or not. Mr Martin pointed out that these sums of money were received soon after witness had paid Shipley. The case was adjourned till 10.30 on Monday next. IN CHAMBERS. His Honour granted probate in the estates of the late John Quid-fall (Mr Jackson), Mary Snell (Mr Armstrong), Jamrs Smith (Mr Gribbin), and John William Knight (Air Devore) ; and also i letters of administration in the estate .of the late Janet Harvey (Mr Newton).