CLAIM SUCCEEDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 245, 16 October 1929, Page 7

CLAIM SUCCEEDS.

ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSON. MONEY LENT ON RACECOURSE PURCHASE OF MOTOR CAR. A claim in which betting transactions and loans were concerned, was brought iii the Supreme Court to-day before Sir Alexander Herdman by Dan Tye, slaughterman, of Papatoetoe (Mr. Johnstone) against J. M. Elliffe and A. C. A. Sexton (Mr. Sexton and Mr. Uren), executors of the estate of the late F. S. Tyler, formerly manufacturers' agent. The claim was for the recovery of £500 in respect of an 1.0. U., £45 in respect of a second 1.0. U. and £10 in respect of a dishonoured cheque. Plaintiff stated in evidence that he had been in the Papatoetoe district for 14 vears. He and the late Mr. Tyler became close friends after meeting on the Ellerslie racecourse at Easter, 1926, at which time plaintiff was the owner of the lacehorses Ruffles and Orelius. He won a race on each day of the two days of that meeting, the financial result being something like £2000. Knowing that he had become richer by that sum, the late Mr. Tyler borrowed £1100. and gave plaintiff an 1.0. U. on an envelope as security. It was understood that the loan was to be for a short while to tide over a business shortage, and that no interest was to be paid. Two or three months later plaintiff asked Mr. Tyler if he could give some better security than an 1.0. U. The latter said that he had to go to England on business. As plaintiff wanted his money to buy a motor car, Mr. Tyler suggested that he procure one for him in England cheaper. An arrangement was made accordingly.

Shares and a Motor Car. Plaintiff stated that Mr. Tyler gave him 500 shares in Tylers, Ltd., these being £1 shares, fully paid up. He also handed him a document covering 200 shares in the Craig Plough Attachment, Ltd., and wrote out an 1.0. U. for £500, making a present of 100 shares. Witness understood that the "plough" shares had fallen flat. Mr. Tyler did not bring a car from England, stating that he had

been financially embarrassed at Home, but remarking that he could finance any car here. Plaintiff selected a car costing £625 and-in part payment put in a light car valued at £90. He took it that the car was bought in Tyler's name. The difference between the £025 and the £00 was in reduction of the amount owing to plaintiff. No other amount in reduction of the debt had been received. When Tyler returned from England he borrowed £50 and a few days before he died witness cashed the cheque for £10 to which reference had been made.

When the P.N.'s had been paid plaintiff went to see Tyler in response to a I telephone call. He said, "The car is paid for and will be duly transferred to you." He also said that if plaintiff did notmind he would prefer to keep the shares, and when they were handed to him he tore them up. To his Honor: The cheque for £10 was dishonoured. He had' a further' 1.0. U. from Mr. Tyler, but it was lost.- '• Cross-examined by Mr. Sexton, plaintiff gave particulars of money which had passed between him and Mr. Tyler. Passing of Shares. To his Honor: He knew that Tyler gaVe some money to Woods, the trainer of plaintiff's horses, but it had no connection with him. Boger Harty Burt, solicitor, gave evidence as to seeing in the possession of plaintiff 500 shares in Mr. Tyler's name and 200 shares which plaintiff called "plough" shares. He suggested that they should be transferred in Mr. Tye's name. Evidence for the defence was given by Thomas William Silcock, secretary of Tylers, Limited, as to cheques which passed through the firm's books. He knew that Mr. Tyler was betting, but he did not know anything of accounts between him and plaintiff. Wife Objected to Friendship. Elizabeth Tyler, widow of the late Mr. F. S. Tyler, said that she had strongly disapproved of the friendship of her husband and Mr. Tye. Both were friendly up to the time of the former's death. She objected to the betting transactions, as Mr. Tyler was writing cheques which were detrimental to his business. On one occasion she went to Mr. Tye's house, and while there asked if her husband owed him any money. Mr. Tye replied chat neither owed the other money. Plaintiff (recalled) said that when Mrs. Tyler came nothing was said about financial relationships.

His Honor said he felt justified in deciding on the evidence to give judgment for £455. Costs were allowed as per scale, witnesses' expenses' to be settled by the registrar.