WOMAN'S CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 92, 20 April 1939, Page 11

WOMAN'S CLAIM

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

STRATFORD, This Day,

Reserved, judgment .for William H. H. Young and William John Poison, of Stratford, was given by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at Stratford today against Mrs. L. A. Garlick, Te Wera, in the case in which Mrs. Garlick sued Young and Poison for £136, the value of sheep and wool allegedly converted by Young and Poison to their own use or, alternatively, as money received by them, to the use of Mrs. Garlick.

Mr. Woodward found that Poison was not a partner of Young at the time the dispute arose, but only in the position of a man lending money at a rate, of interest independent of profit or loss, and that Mrs. Garlick's claim against Poison failed. Dealing with Young's position, Mr. Woodward said that Mrs. Garlick was no more able to prove her case than Young was to disprove, but as the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, Mrs. Garlick failed. He referred to the fact that Young sold some sheep before the dispute was clarified, and while he did not think the precipitancy was with the intention of defeating Mrs. Garlick's claim, he believed Young's impatience to sell, despite warnings and before a tally could be taken, might have prevented Mrs. Garlick from being able to prove her claim. In the circumstances there would be no costs for Young. Mr. S. Macalister, for Young and Poison, asked about costs for Poison. Mr. Woodward said he hoped that that would not have been raised. He suggested that the point be referred to Poison who is in Wellington at present, and be reconsidered. Mr. Macalister agreed.