A QUESTION OF RESIDENCE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2996, 6 February 1917, Page 6

A QUESTION OF RESIDENCE

RJ.WATTANDTHEN.Z. ARMY . AN INTERESTING-CASE By Teksrraph—Sp€cial Correspondent. Napier, February 5. A case of exceeding interest occupied the attention .of Mr. L. G. Reid, S.M., at the NapieK Court to-day, when Edward James Watt, the well-known horse and land owner, was charged with beiug a member of the First Division of. the New Zealand' Expeditionary Force ami having failed to register. It was stated by the police sergeant that defendant was 43 years of age, single, and a resident of New Zealand.

Mr.Lusk, who appeared 'for the defendant, and entered a plea of not guilty, admitted the failure to enrol, but said Watt was not a resides in the meaning of the Act, as his home and interests "were in Australia. Moreover, defendant was on the Commonwealth Military Roll.

Edward James Watt, in giving evidence on bis own behalf, Said that on August 31, 1909, 'in conjunction with his stepfather, he purchased properties known as "Longbeach," in Central Queensland, and another "Suipiton." The former carried about 130,000 sheep and was of about 510,000 acres. The latter was stocked with cattle, and was of about 250,000 acres. About three and a half years ago witness decided to take up his permanent residence in Sydney. He had no intention of ever returning to New Zealaifil to reside. He accordingly sold his "Ngatarawa" residence and furniture, taking all his valuable silver, etc.; with him. His adjoining lands were subsequently sold, and properties at Longlands, etc., were put on the market for sale. He intended to dispose of all his New Zealand interests. Witness had taken a house in Sydney, and had another at Loiigreach. He hired a permanent room at the Union Club. ■ He supervised all his Queensland property, nearly all his time being occupied in that' direction. Witness was on the Com-' monwealth Roll, being on the Longreach Roll. He had further enrolled iu the Australian Military Roll. Certain papers had been sent to him which he always filled in and returned. Witness always visited Now Zealand about this time of the year, taking a return ticket. ' Tlu's time a .leturn ticket would not be issued on account of the strike. His visit this time was for the purpose of seeing his mother and sister, who were ill, and in connection with certain properties still on , the market. Witness still had racehorses in Nmv Zealand, also some in training in-.-Sydney, , Melbourne, and Brisbane. He , intended to have his trainer and horses taken to Sydney as soon as possible. Last year, .when ho Bent four horses back from Australia with his trainer; Quinliven, it was iu the latter's interests purely. As soon as his stud farm could bo moved witness said he would give up all racing interests in New Zealand. -Witness said he always intendecl to return from his visits. All his '•Longlands" property, with the excoption of 300 acres, ' had been sold. 'Witness's, residence was iu. Australia, and he l.ad no intention to return here for residence.

Cross-examined,, witness said he landed' in Auckland on Christmas Day. Witness did not know if his name was still, on the eleotpral roll. Perhaps his •name was still on,the property qualification roll. Witness was in partnership with Mr. Stead. It had been an out-of-pocket concern. He still 'had 1 racehorses in New Zealand. Witness's interest was not in racing in New Zealand. It was his trainer's interest. He had notices from the military authority in Australia, and always filled them in as required. Conscription was not in force there.

His ■ Worship said tlia.fc if defendant had filled in the military forms fii'Australia he could not' be expected to serve in two places. The sergeant: Have you offered your services in ' any way ? ■

Witness replied that many of his employees had gone, and ho had promised to provide for their dependants. John H. Coleman, stepfather, of defendant, said he. was in shares with his stepson in the' Australian properties bought 7 j v vears ago. His son from that time was constantly in Australia. About three years ago defendant expressed liis inlientiou to reside in Australia, and sever all his connection with New Zealand. He. accordingly disposed of his house property. _ Witness corroborated defendant's evidence as to his visits to New Zealand.

Heiiry Valentine Hoadley', managing director of Hoadley, Son, and Stewart, said that defendant was at one time a large shareholder in that business, and was on their board. Witness knew all his properties three years ago. In 1913, when defendant left the Dominion, witness's, firm disposed by auction of his "Ngatarawa" house and effects. With regard to' his shares defendant instructed witness to transfer his whole interests as he could be of no further use. He thereon ceased to be a shareholder and director. ' All defendant's properties wore placed on the' market, the last sale being a few days ago.

Wilfred 0. Sproule, of the firm of Cotterill and Humphries, said his firm had always done business for defendant. Three years.ago defendant told witness he was winding up his affairs. When asked to advance money he always said he wanted it in Australia.

jhomas Francis Quinlivan, horse trainer,- said he had been training for Mr. Watt for 19 years. When defendant went to reside in Australia threeyears ago, he wanted witness to go with him and take all the horses. He could not go on account of family matters. About a year ago he took horses to Australia for Mr. Stead. Some difference then arose between witness and tlio latter.' Defendant then took four of his Australian horses and made witness bring them to New Zealand with him. Tjris was to. give witness a fresh start. Defendant again requested him to go over to Australia and take all the horses. He intended to go over as soon as possible. At this stage defendant's passport for Australia was produced, and counsellor the defence explained that they were given to residents only, and had to be reproduced on arrival back in Australia.

His Worship said the facts brought before' him clearly showed that defendant's domicile or place of residence was Australia. The matter, however, was of such importance that he would reservo his decision until to-morrow.