WHO WAS TO PAY?

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 303, 22 December 1926, Page 12

WHO WAS TO PAY?

A TRIP TO AUSTRALIA. DISPUTE IX COURT. j The hearing of a very complicated case was concluded yesterday in the Magistrate's Court before Mr.W. R. McKean. S.M.. when Agnes Bell, a widow (Mr. McLiver), sought to recover from Edward Henry (Mr. Adams) the I sum of £141, the balance of £200 banked j for plaintiff in defendant's name in or about the month of March last. The evidence of the plaintiff showed that Henry had boarded with her and her husband in Wellington. Plaintiff's husband had died and defendant tad talked of marriage. The £200 had been given to Henry to pay as a deposit on a house. Henry offered to take her a trip to Sydney and Melbourne.' After their return defendant had borrowed £30 from her. In all £59 out of the £200 had been paid back, the last payment being one of £39. Defendant said that he had known plaintiff for about four years. When she came to Auckland she was carrying over £200 around with her. He suggested banking it for safety, and at her suggestion it was put in his account. Plaintiff had also suggested a trip to Sydney and Melbourne. It was a mutual agreement that plaintiff should, pay expenses. Defendant had paid back all the £200 with the exception of the £3C he had borrowed. Cross-examined, Henry was unable tc give any clear account of his payments He five times changed the amount oi the last payment he made to Mrs. Bell He admitted that ■he had received th< money for a deposit on a house. Mr. McKean remarked that he was unable to rely on anything the defen dant said, and would adjourn the cas( until the afternoon, in order that defend dant might have time to think it over After the adjournment, defendant sai< he had made a mistake and that he owei plaintiff £2 in addition to the £30 h< had borrowed. Mr. McKean said that the evidence wai not satisfactory <m either side. He di< not think that defendant had any inten tion of being dishonest in his dealing; with the plaintiff. The magistrate wa inclined to think that the trip to Syd ney was suggested by plaintiff. Defend ant may or may not have paid the sun precisely due to plaintiff. He admitte< that £2 was owing and plaintiff wa entitled to this. Under the condition plaintiff would be nonsuited.