LOAN ALLEGED TO BE GIFT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21865, 19 August 1936, Page 18

LOAN ALLEGED TO BE GIFT

SUCCESSFUL CLAIM FOR £205 SUPREME COURT HEARING Whether the transfer of a sum amounting to £205 was in fact a loan or a gift was the question disputed before his Hpnour Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday, when Mrs Sarah Riordan, of Leeston, claimed that sum from Maud Woods, formerly employed as a housekeeper by plaintiff. Mr W. J. Sim appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. T. Donnelly for defendant. Plaintiff also claimed interest on the amount at 3 per cent., xrom October 24,-1934, to May 29, 1936. making a total of £214 16s 9d. Plaintiff .stated that in October, 1934, she lent £205 to defendant for the purchase of a house property from the late Robert McMeekin, and that it was agreed' by defendant to pay interest at 3 per cent Plaintiff’s claim was for the amount alleged to have been lent, with interest. , ' ~ For defendant. Mr Donnelly suggested that plaintiff was a woman of a generous type who, however, was in the habit of making a gift and then wanting it back. In that case she was too late. Defendant admitted that she had bought a house property at Springston from Robert McMeekin. Defendant stated that the money had actually been given by plaintiff out of her regard for defendant, whom she had employed for approximately'two years at 12s 6d a week. The gift had been made for the purchase of the house property, in two sums, of £ls and £IBO, the £ls being part of a cheque for £25. ' Defendant stated in evidence that plaintiff had stipulated that no one should be told of the gift, saying that it would be some compensation for the small wage defendant received. To Mr Sim, witness said she did not think that, in view of other claims on Mrs Riordan’s generosity, there was no justification for such a gift. The gift had been made. Written Receipt To Mr Donnelly, witness said that if the money had been a loan at 3 per cent, she certainly would not have taken it. She knew of other instances of Mrs Riordan giving money, mostly to relations. George Frederick Witty, an inspector of the Springs-Ellesmere Power Board, said that the money had been given. Mrs Riordan had mentioned that she was giving the house property to Miss Woods. Mrs Riordan had later said that it was a gift, but she regretted it, and now wished for a mortgage over the property. To Mr Sim, witness admitted having threatened Mrs Riordan that a letter he believed to have been written by her to Miss Woods would be produced in court. The letter had reflected on his character, imputing impropriety on the part of himself and Miss Woods. Defendant, who was recalled, said to Mr Donnelly that she had destroyed the letter.

Mrs Riordan, in evidence, denied that she had given the money to defendant. She had lent the money to complete the .purchase of the house property for defendant’s parents, and nacf taken a written acknowledgment of the loan. She had not written the letter with which the witness Witty had threatened her. Witness supposed that the written acknowledgment of the loan signed by Miss Woods, had been removed by defendant, Aden Seafield Lyons, a solicitor at Leeston, said that Mrs Riordan had told him she was lending Miss Woods the money to buy the property, but that she did not intend taking a mortgage at present because of Miss Woods’s financial position. She mentioned that she had a receipt in writing from Miss Woods, and said that witness was to hold the title on her behalf. Witness had told Miss Woods that he was instructed to hold the title, and she had raised no objection. His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff for the full amount of £205, with interest at 3 per cent, on £IBO from the date on which the loan was made.