HOUSEKEEPER’S CLAIM

Evening Star, Issue 24005, 2 October 1941, Page 12

HOUSEKEEPER’S CLAIM

DECEASED FARMER'S ESTATE M VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF T After a licariug which occupied the attention of Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court for the greater part of yesterday, judgment was given for plaintiff for £49 in the claim by Mary Ann Tyler, of Dunedin, widow, to recover the sum of £3OO from Joseph Albert Pedofsky (Port Chalmers) and Annie Veronica Potbury (Auckland), executors of the will of John Pedofsky. Mr It. C. Itutherford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. L. Calvert for the defendants. In her statement of claim plaintiff alleged that the amount owed to her by defendants was more than £3OO, representing wages owing to her and moneys lent by her to John Pedofsky, of Middlcmarcli, farmer, who died on May 2, 19-11. The amount claimed was made up of £297 in wages at £1 a week from August 22, 1935, to May 2, 1941, 11 io remainder being duo, it was alleged, for moneys lent to pay an instalment on a radio in July,'l93o. The plaintiff abandoned the amount exceeding £3OO. and claimed to recover £3OO. The defendant Joseph Albert Pedofsky, a son of the deceased, and one of the executors under the will, told the court that after his father’s death he had gone through deceased’s papers to ascertain the position. The insurance policy which had been assigned to plaintiff was missing, and was not found until about a week later. The plaintiff assisted witness in the search, during which they came across a wages book, plaintiff remarking that, it might as well be destroyed, as it was of no use. "Witness, however, put it back in the drawer. No other book in which wages had been entered could bo found. Witness said his father was a good payor, and none of the accounts owing at the time of his death was more than a month old. From his knowledge of tho deceased, witness said he could uot see any need for him to have borrowed £lO from anybody within a few months of his death. Plaintiff never mentioned to witness that any moneys were owing to Iter by his late father. Witness said lie and his brother assisted plaintiff to get her poultry away from the farm, she paid each of them £l, and they parted on the host of terms. Witness’s research showed that for tho six years preceding his father’s death ho had paid plaintiff wages in cash amounting to £B7 10s, cheques paid to plaintiff were shown as £3O Is, and there was an amount of £63 8s 10(1 for fowl wheat. Other moneys paid on her behalf were shown at £B7 4s lOd. Witness said that from his father’s records ho could find no evidence of any moneys owing by him to the plaintiff'. Evidence was also given by John Francis Pedofsky.

To a suggestion that some of the amounts named might be payments lor wages, Mr Calvert said that there was no suggestion that the wages were paid in other than cash, and that any such payments that deceased made were other than gratuitous. The Magistrate said that in such a case as this corroboration was not essential. It differed from a similar class of ease in that plaintiff was not a relative of the deceased. His Worship said ho would find that plaintiff was employed by the deceased and was entitled to £1 a week and her keep. He thought it was for the defence to prove the wages had been paid. Admittedly, it was difficult for them to prove it after the death of their father. He could only suggest that they perhaps arrive at a settlement. Some receipts for wages had been put in, and he accepted them with some hesitation. Plaintiff would bo entitled to 297 weeks’ pay at £1 a week, from which would have to be deducted what had been proved to he paid. There was some doubt in his mind concerning the moneys said to have been lent, and these would not be allowed. After allowing for deductions, the Magistrate said that judgment would be given for plaintiff for £49. with court costs (£2 os), solicitor’s foe (£3 9s). and witness's expenses (os).