Oath Against Oath.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5235, 25 August 1891, Page 3

Oath Against Oath.

HARD SWEARING EXTRAORDINARY.

A oase in which there was a great deal of hard swearing occupied the attention of the Resident Magistrate, Mr Turnbull, this morning. The action was brought by Joseph Roulston, licensee of the Victoria Hotel, White road, agiinst W. L. Hanwell, dealer in eeoond-hand articles, for the sum of £4.

Mr Cornford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lascelles for the defendant.

Counsel for the plaintiff said the facts of the case were as follows :—On the 14th July last the defendant Han well wee in possession of a certain pipe belonging to a young man named Henry Milner, who was employed on a station at Waimarama. Milner had deposited the pipe with Hanwell, and was to pay him 13b 6d when he took it back. Milner went to Rouleton at the Victoria Hotel, where he lodged, and asked him for the loan of a small sum in order to regain possession of the pipe. Roulston agreed, knowing the young man, and Hanwell subsequently brought the pipe (a fine mersohaum) to the hotel. Roulston pulled out a five-pound note and handed it to Hanwell, who took out his purse and gave him 6s 6d. There being 13s 6d due on the pipe, that made up a pound. Hanwell said he would bring down the other four pounds in the afternoon. He came bask in the evening, asked to see a sporting paper, and when leaving was asked for the change, but he replied that he had forgotten it. On different occasions afterwards he was asked for the £4, but made various excuses, and ultimately said he knew nothing whatever about the £5.

Joseph Roulston detailed the facts of the case as mentioned above, and swore that the note given Hanwell was for five pounds. He had no other change, and when the note was handed over Milner was present and saw it, and there were others in the bar parlor who heard what passed when the pipe was handed over.

Henry Milner also swore positively it was a fire-pound note, and Thomas Fothergill and George Dewsnip, who happened to be there on business, heard the conversation in respect to the defendant bringing np the change for the five-pound note in the evening. This was the plaintiff's case. The defendant, W. L. Hanwell, swore that when he handed over the pipe in the hotel he got a one-pound note from Roulston in the passage, in Milner's presence. He gave 6s 6d change, and then Roulston went round into the bar, and witness called for two drinks for himself and Milner. Roulston never said anything about any further change at all. After they had had drinks, Roulston put his hand in his pocket, and pulling out some notes, said he was hard up for email change, and asked witness if he could bring down £5 worth from his shop. Witness replied he would see ; if he ,oould he would probably bring it down in the afternoon. He then left the hotel and called in in the evening to see a sporting paper, but Roulston never aaked him for any change then. Next morning he met Roulston in Hastings street, who said to him, " You didn't bring up the change for that £5." Witness replied, pointing to a bank opposite, "It is not necessary for you to ask me for change now, Mr Roulston ; if you want change you can go to the bank and get it yourself." Roulston afterwards passed his chop time after time, and witness had been into his hotel three or four times, but nothing more was said of this change business. On the 6th of August, however, as witness wae going to a sale, he saw Roulston, who asked " what about that £4?" Witness asked what £4 was referred to, and Boulston said it was the change from the £5 given for the pipe. Witness denied having received a fivepound note, and said if it was it had been passed off as a one-pound note. That was the first suspicion witness had of the note being for more than one pound. The wife of the defendant stated she had had the handling of all moneys taken by her husband, and the note received on the occasion referred to was only for one pound. The R.M. gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed (£4), with costs £1 19s, witnesses' expenses £2 9s, solicitors , fee £1 Iβ.