DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 99, 15 November 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

■ ■"■»'+ This Day. (Before hia Honour Judge Hardcastle.) couriLv* y, u'attnt. .This wa»«n action brought for Elitabtth ColvillC to rtooftr'Yrom Jolm WLucn th» sum of .£l7B 2b, being the amount of money, with accrued interest, lent to the defendant. Mr. Edward Shaw appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. Stafford for the defendant. Mr. Shaw having opened the oaio, oalled the plaintiff, who deposed that she wu the wife of John OolviUe, to whom she wa« married at Danedin 14 years ago. She left that place for Holritika immediately after her marriage. She remained at Holdtika for about three yean, and then went, into a situation at the Grey, as her' husband would not work. She had two children by him. She went to Victoria; and after raiding there for six month*, ah* returned to the West Coast, and took up h*r residence on the Ajax Hill at Beefton. Sht took np an accommodation house at that place, and kept it in her own name. 8h» stayed there four years, during nearly all of which time she lired apart from her htuband. Finding that theplaoe wu not suited for her, she came to Wellington. She then had a balance at the bank of £200, and some notes in hand, amounting to £20. Vb» money was lodged in the name of Elisabeth Douglas. In January, 1890, she had a conversation with Mr. M'Lean, the defendant. Both Mr. and Mrs. M'Lean applied for the loan of some money, and as the remit of their chat, she took up JBI7O in notes to their house on the 3rd of January. She obtained an acknowledgment from defendant in the form of a cheque due in six month*, and it was decided that she should receive interest at the rate of 10 per cent, as long as they had possession of the money. She handed the cheque to defendant to keep for her. Defendant at the time was a contractor. At the expiration of the six months the applied for the refund of the money in a lump, but he always pnt her off. She had, however, obtained a sum of £» from the defendant and hia wife, in response to repeated appli* cations. The defendant had never denies the liability. At the time the money wai, lent her husband wai staying in the B*m* house, but they were not cohabiting,, and they wer« still apart. In th««arlypfc»4pf

tho present yoar she got a protection ordor from her husband, in oonnoquence of his drunken habits and oraol treatmont. By Mr. Stafford— The wholo of the .£2OO was made out of the boarding houße, which she kept at Reefton. After coming buck from Victoria sho and Colvillo livod together for a littlo while at Eeofton, and during that timo tho liconso of tho honxe was in hix name He also worked in a claim, but as ho drank nearly all the oarnings, sho received vory little money from him. She lived by horsolf at Beofton for throo years. Elizabeth Douglas was a fictitious name. Witness hod boon married twice, find had a daughter by a former husband. Herhusbandwasawarothat the .£2OO was in tho Te Aro braaoh of the Bonk of Now Zealand, but to her own knowledge ho had 'never appliod to M'Lean for the refund of the money wbioh sho had lent to him. Colvillo had novor olaimed the money from her, but ho had often expressed a desire to get hold of it) so that he might have a big spree. She denied that she had a conversation with her husband this morning and offered to withdraw the caso if he would sharo tho plundor. John M'Lean, tho defendant, deposed that he knew the plaintiff. About tho end oi 1879 ho applied to her for the loan of some money, and she gave him .£l7O, he promising to pay hor intercut at the current rate. Ho admitted that he owed tho monoy, and would havo toaid it oro notr brd not Mr. Colville served him with a notico not to give it to his wifo. He hod known Colville for a long timo ; ho was an ongineor and witness was a contractor. Tho husband and wifo were lighting now ; ho was willing to pay the money and was not defending tho action. In a conversation whioh he had with Colv"le tho latter told him ho knew ilvo days after the transaction took place that ho (witnoa) had borrowed the money. The money ho borrowed was that of KHzaboth Ddugl&s.' She told that she had adopted that name because she did not want her husband to know that sho possossod such a sum, Colvillo and hia wifo livod together at Wellington for some timo. She told him that sho mado tho monoy whilst keeping the boirding-house at Roofton. They were living together whon'ho borrowed tho money from tho plaintiff. He would have paid the money n Mr. Stafford had not advised him to the contrary. ' '"' ' Henry Mace deposed that at the time he was part proprietor of the Ajax mine, Beefton, Colvillo was for sometime engine-driver on tho claim, and was discharged. Hodoolinod to state for what reason his services wero dispensod with. Mr. Shaw urged the question, and somo argument took place between his Honour and tho learned counsel on the point, tho Court ultimately over-ruling Mr. Shaw. Examination continued— He could not say how lpDgtho plaintiff continued to koep the boarding-house. He was aware at tho timo that defendant had borrowed tho money. ,Ho was interested in the loon. William Jhmes, Clerk of the R.M. Court, produced the records of the Court Bhowing that in tho cud of January, 1882, a protection order was issued to the plaintiff on the ground of drunkonnosa and repeated cruelty. Tho plaintiff, haying been re-called, Mr. Shaw asked her for what period had sho lieen ill-troated. Mr, Stafford objected, and his Honour hold the question irrelevant. John Colville doposod that ho waa the husband of tho plaintiff. He had instructed Mr. Stafford to take action in the matter. This oloßqd tho case, for the .plaintiff. Mr. Stafford appliod for a nonsuit,! and quoted fr~n authorities in support of his appliaation. Tho usual dinner hour adjournment was then made. On resuming, Mr, Shaw asked that a fnrthor adjournment might bo mado to enable a compromise-to be effected. His Honour having agreed to this, the Court was adjourned till 2.30 o'clock, and, on rosnming it was stated that . an araioablo settlement had been arrive4irir,':li, is understood that vhe plaintiff receives the sum of £00.