LOAN OR GIFT.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 169, 18 July 1924, Page 8

LOAN OR GIFT.

IMMIGRANT'S PASSAGE MOHET. 5 MAGISTRATE ORDERS REFUND. "All I can say for the defendant is i that he is an ingrate and a liar; I believe i his evidence is untruthful, and that ue - has been ungrateful." So said Mr. H. Y. Widdowsonj S.M., ! in the Magistrate's Court at Christl church in a case in which a farmer - claimed the repayment of passage money ; provided for emigrants from England. ! Hervey Bradbury, farmer, of Balcairn t (Mr. K. G. Archer), proceeded against i Archibald Campbell, labourer, 31, Aleen Street (Mr. W. A. White). The claim ■was for £96, being money paid by the plaintiff to the New Zealand Immigration Department in 1921 " to pay for assisted passages to New ' Zealand for the defendant and his family, which money the defendant ■ agreed to repay to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a brother-in-law of defendant, said that he authorised his wife to give the passage money for his wife's mother to come to New Zealand, ' and offering to lend money to the defendant, his wife and children, to come out also. The defendant had written saying that if things turned out all right he would soon be able to repay. There was no mention of a gift. The defendant had made an offer to pay off the money in instalments. | Betsy Bradbury, the plaintiff's wife, said that the money was given ac a loan. The defence was that the plaintiffs wife had written to England saying that she would pay the defendant's passage money to New Zealand in return • for the kindness of defendant's wife to fhe mother of plaintiffs wife. Tne ■ money was accepted as a gift; there ; was no mention of repayment, and the defendant, with five children, had no i hope of repaying the monej. The defendant said that the plain- < tiff's wife was pining to go Home, but ' that would have cost her £400, and the ; plaintiff's wife suggested that it would ; be cheaper for the defendant and the j mother-in-law to come to New Zealand ' at plaintiff's expense. The defe»*wit ( agreed, and the passage money was pro- , vided. Plaintiff did not demand repay- i ment until after eighteen months of < arrival, when defendant denied liability. ] Subsequently when plaintiff threatened i proceedings, the defendant, to use his. } own words, "got the wind up," and 1 agreed to pay in instalments at the j rate of 5/ a week, but at the same time ] denying liability. ' After, using the remarks quoted above : the magistrate gave judgment for plain- ' tiff for the full amount with, costs. ]