RELATIVES AT LAW

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 December 1925, Page 2

RELATIVES AT LAW

“A GLORIOUS FALL-OUT.” ARGUMENTS AT ARATIKA A dispute between relatives was ventilated at the Greymouth Magistrate’s Court, before Mr. W. Meldrum, S.M'.-,- to-day, when George Francis Wood, sawmiller, of Aratika, sued Catherine Stratford, of Aratika, for £5O, the amount of a loan. Wood also sued Edmund Felling Stratford, sawmiller, Aratika, for 1 £ 87/5/10, balance of a loan of £lOO, made on June 10, 1.914, with interest, at six per cent. The defence was based on the Statute of Limitations. It was decided to take the cases together. !■ Mr. J. W. Hannan appeared for plaintiff and Mr./' W. J. Joyce for defendants. j Margaret Wood said that about August, 1922, she received a letter from her sister, Mrs. Stratford, Who was- at Wellington, asking for a Iban. -Mr. Joyce objected, on the ground that the letter was not produced. jThe Magistrate said evidence could be given regarding the answer to the letter. 'Witness said that a loan of £5O was made. She and her husband were residing at Aratika at the time, and witness forwarded the money. None of it had been repaid. Mr. Joyce admitted that the £5O had been received. ■Witness, continuing, said tnat a further loan of £lOO was made. The money was paid to Mr. Stratford in the railway ofiide at Karnaka by witness’s husband. She' Was present. The money was borrowed by Mr. Stratford in connection with a racehorse. A payment of £lO was paid to her husband, and five of £5 each to witness. Thel sum of £s«=had been credited to Mrs. Stratford for furniture, which she did not want to take to Nelson. Her husband had been in hospital and needed money, and on request, Mr. Stratford sent £25. Witness, in reply to Mr. Joyce, said that she got Mr. Kim Williams- to transmit the £5O to Mrs. Stratford by wire. She drew the money out of the Post Office Savings Bank, but the

money was sent on her husband’s behalfi<JWr. Stratford “certainly did not” repay the £loo'before'l9l9; “You had a glorious old fall out amongst yourselves, and after the fallout you commenced these proceed-

ings?” suggested Mr. Joyce. Witness said that the trouble at the mill had nothing to do with the case. Her husband had often asked Stratford for the money. The £25 was sent to her husband, and not to witness. When' the Stratfords left for Nelson in 1920, the balance owing was £65. George Francis Wood said that the £5O lent in 1922 Was his, and it had not been repaid. Regarding the £lOO loan, Stratford asked for the loan on June 10, 1914, and agreed to repay at £6 per month, with 6 per cent.' interest; The money Avas paid over at Kamaka Station. He had not pushed Stratford for the money for some time. Four years later Stratford was given a job at Aratika, and when he arrived made a first payment of £lO, , and subsequently one of £25. Since February, 1924, the matter had been discussed by witness and Stratford several times, the latter asking for more time to pay, admitting that there was' a balance owing. Altogether £6O had been repaid. In reply to Mr. Joyce, witness said he had not kept Stratford’s letter asking for the loan. One did not keep such things for ever and a day. “If I dug up the house, I might find it,” he added. His wife had received some of the payments, but always told him about it. He and Stratford had been working on contract, for about 15 months, and had earned big money. “■ “How is it you never mentioned the money owing to Stratford when you divided up the returns?” asked Mr. Joyce.

“Too right, I did!” declared witness. He had reminded Stratford several times. Sometimes' they made sial by’s wages, about £l6 a month. “It was more ,often £5O or £60,” asserted Mr. Joyce. In reply to further questions, witness said that the “fall-out” had nothing to do with the case. As a result of; the trouble, the mill closed down. “The trouble was not between two of us, it might have been one ®f us.” he said. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence, Mr Joyce submitted that the business was dune by the women, and Stratford was under t}iB impression that the money had been repaid. Kim Williams, described by Mr Joyce as “a kind of benefactor to all the country people,” said that he iseiit t'lie money at the request of Mrs Wood, and collected it from her later. Mi's Stratford 'Sometime afterwards rang him up and asked him to send £25 to Mrs Wood. He did so, and collected it on the following day .from Dlrs Stratford. He did not send the wires personally. His clerk did that, and he did not know whether the wires were sent to husband or wife. Money had been transmitted by him to the parties on only two occasions. The women usually did such business. He had regarded the word of both parties as their bond. “Did you look upon the husbands as persons in the background who would finally be responsible. ” asked the Magistrate. “Yes ( ” agreed witness. To further questions, lie said that the parties ran accounts at his shop, both in the husband’s name. The accounts were sent to the husbands. Catherine Stratford said that her son was ill in 1922, and she was short of money. She asked her sister for a few pounds, and received £BO. Her sister had never asked her to repay the money, buf said that it belonged to herself and not to her husband. The £lOO loan was’made 'n 1914, to witness’s husband. She made several cash payments of £5 each, to Mrs Wood between 1916 and 1918, but no credit had been given for any of them. Mrs Wood paid cash for the furnit”re. W'tnesr- asked Kim Williams to wire £25 to Dlrs Woods cqa account of the £5O loan. She borrowed the r 25 from her son to repay Mr Williams. Interest was never mentioned by her sister. Edmund Francis Stratford, 'the son. said that the furniture was paid for in 1920. He fixed the date because a marriage took place en the following dav. The Magistrate said that it was a nuzzle to sorr 'out the real positqryi. It seemed to be an unfortunate fam-.,, ilv disnute. After reviewing . the evidence lie sni 1 Ginl ip (ho absence

of any agreement regarding the payment of interest, he could not allow anything on that score. He held that the £l6O loan had been settled. H a balance on the original! £lOO loan had been due, it was hard to understand why £5O was sent to Mrs Stratford, when she asked for a much smaller amount. He gave judgment for plaintiff for £25 against the separate estate of Mrs Stratford. Plaintiff would be non-suited on the claim for £lOO. The parties were all more or less to blame, and each would be ordered to pay their own. costs. “OATH AGAINST OATH.” Ernest Cressey (Mr H. P. Smith) proceeded against John McGrath for repayment of a £lO loan. Cressey said that McGrath had repaid only £4, and told him (Cressey) that he had to pawn his wife’s engagement ring to raise the money.' No other payment had been made. McGrath contended that he had repaid the Joan. Plaintiff had varied his account on three occasions. Cressey alleged that the receipt showing'£4 had been altered to read £B. The parties made further uncompl'inentary references to each other’s character and actions generally. It was a case of “oath against oath,” said the Magistrate. He field that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case, and allowed costs to the defendant.