SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7226, 28 April 1884, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS, Saturday, April 26. (Before his Honor Air Justice Johnston.) BRAMLEY V. WILSON AND MULCOCK. Mr Joynt for plaintiff; Air Garrick for defendant. This case was resumed at 10.30 a.m. Airs Bramley recalled: Eeceived the balance-sheet at the beginning of 1881, or as near to that as witness could remember. It was returned about six months afterwards. It was seen by Air Alfred White and witness’ brother, William Luxton, and her daughter Flora. In November last asked Air Mulcock if he had altered the account as Mr Joynt had suggested, from his own private account to the Bramley Trust account. He said he had done so. He said that Mr Peel had advised him to put the estate into his private account. James Peel, manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Eangiora: No account had been opened to the credit of the Bramley Trust Estate. The only account having any connection with it was E. Mulcock’s Trust account. This was operated on by Mr Mulcock only. About the middle of 1879 the account was closed. Believed the balance was transferred to Mulcoek’s private account. The closing cheque drawn was £l2B 6s lOd, and this amount was passed to Alulcock’s private account at that time. The account was about £l2O overdrawn before the cheque was paid in. Alulcock called upon him and told him it would he convenient to pass the estate to his private account, to keep the two accounts in one. Witness made no objection, as it had nothing to do with the Bank. Mr Mulcock complained that he was not satisfied with what the estate was earning, as the Bank would only pay 2£ per cent, and he had agreed to borrow from the estate at 8 per cent. From that date to July, 1882, the money of the estate was lodged to the private credit of Mulcock. In Julv, 1882, a Trust account was opened “E. Mulcock, Trust account.” Witness found out that Airs Bramley objected to the money being borrowed by the trustees. Before re-opening of this latter account Airs Bramley interviewed and demanded to know about the trust funds. He told her that there was no trust fund, and could not recognise her in the matter ; he was only dealing with Mr Mulcock, and referred her to the Trust account. Cross-examined : The freehold securities unencumbered by Mr Mulcock were of the value of about £4OOO, and the Bank had in addition to these, scrip in the Kaiapoi Woollen Company, valued at £IOOO. Witness had told Mr Mulcock that the Bank would advance him money if he asked it. William Waterston, manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Eangiora : Had been so since January, 1883. The statement he had put in was a correct statement of the affairs. He produced cheques and lodgment slips, fixed deposit receipts, and statement of fixed deposit account. Cross-examined: Up to present time Mulcock had banked with the Bank in question, and his credit was good. Flora Bramley said she was the older daughter of the plaintiff. She remembered being present at an interview with Mr T. Wilson and her mother. Wilson asked to be allowed to 1 ok at a paper he had given her some months ago. Her mother gave him the paper to look at. He looked at it while her mother held it. Ho took the paper, folded it up, put it in his pocket, and said, cc You wont see this any more. I’ll wipe my hands clean of the whole affair.” Witness did not remember the contents. Ann Elizabeth Storey : Was living with Mrs Bramley in Alay 1882. Remembered Mr Mulcock coming about Alay 30, 1882. Heard a conversation between him and Airs Bramley. Mr Mulcock took a paper from his pocket, which he called a receipt, and asked Airs Bramley to sign it; she refused. Ho said: sign this receipt you can have any sum of money you like to name. It not, you must name a sum of money to borrow from tho estate.” Airs Bramley said she would not name a sum to borrow from tho estate, and asked to bo paid her dues, as she had £l3 balance loft. Cross-examined: Had been a domestic servant, employed by Mrs Bramley ; left in 1883. Had distinct recollection of all that witness had told. George Alfred White, storekeeper, at Oxford: Eememberod, in 1882, Airs Bramley showing him a document. His particular attention was drawn to one item purporting to bo paid by B. Mulcock, for interest. Tho document appeared to be an abstract of accounts. It was on a sheet of note paper or letter paper, you could hardly call it anything. Tho name of “ I. Wilson ” was on the margin. It contained several other items. It did not state upon what capital, or for what period, or at whati rate of interest the

.£BO was paid. Was present when Mrs Bramley met Mr Mulcock at Mrs Bramley’s house in November last year. Mr Mulcock said he wished to consult her about the affairs of the estate. Mrs Bram--1 y complained that she had not received l.i i- proper amount of income, and asked Muli-ock why. Ho said he had not nis books on' papers with him, and so could not give her any information. Mrs Bramley asked if a Trust account had been opened as she had requested. Ho said that what he had done was by the consent of Mr Wilson, and the advice of Mr Peel, Mr Mulcock said he should be very glad to wash his hands of the whole affair, and if other trustees were appointed in whom he had confidence, he would be happy to hand'the affair over to them. Cross-examined: Witness examined & Bank pass-book there, which Mr Mulcock referred to< Richard;Meredith, State school teacher at Gust; Hod borrowed £4OO from the Bramley estate in October, 1877, on mortgage at 9 per cent for four years. Paidthe money back in Oct. 1881. air Joynt: The accounts show-you had the money in October, 187(5.) Wrote to Mr Mulcock to allow the money to remain on for a little longer at 7 per'cent without renewal of deeds. Mr ; Mulcock replied that witness could have the ;money at 7‘. or 8 per cent. Finding witness could obtain it on easier terms he declined accepting the offer. Cross-examined Could not say that he mentioned any definite term to Mr Muleoek. Re-examined : Tl>s transaction went off on the question of interest. William Henry Lunton, butcher at Eangiora, a brother of plaintiff, gave evidence that he saw the account containing item, “E. Mulcock, .£3O for interest/’ Had, on March 13, 1882, applied for a loan of ifßoo on mortgage on a piece of land for which witness’ brother and he gave .£I2OO. Mr Mulcock first premised the money at 7 per cent., but afterwards told witness he could not have it. as there was only from £250 to £3OO available in the estate. This closed the case f*r the plaintiff. Mr Garrick said he did not intend to address the Court in, opening his case, reserving his remarks till the motion for a decree. He called

Thomas Brown Craig, an accountant: Had had the books in Bramley’s estate from Nov. I, 1882, till well on in 1883. They were-put in witness’ hands by Mr Mulcock with a view of making up the estate’s accounts. Saw Mr Joynt about the matter. A difficulty arose as to construing the will in respect to what was income and what capital in the estate, Mr Garrick told witness he was take the law as to the construction of the will from himself, but witness never got this. His Honor: When was this action brought?

Mr Garrick r Twelve months ago. Witness, cross-examined: Was spoken to by Mr Joynt about the accounts in September, 1882. It was after that Mr Garrick spoke to witness.

Edward Mulcock: Eecollected Mr Luxton applying for a loan of .£OOO. There was about .£OOO in the estate then. Did not tell Mr Luxton there was only about £250. Told Mr Luxton witness could not grant the loan, first, because there was no money in the estate. Had an interview with Mrs Bramley at her house, in consequence of a letter witness received from her. Witness’ intention was to see if he could not arrange the difference between her and him. Mrs Bramley asked how it was that she had not received more than a little oVer £2OO for the year. Witness said there must be a mistake, and showed her from the bank pass book that she had received about £IOO. She said she could not believe it. Gave Mr Wade the items from the book, and he told Mrs Bramley that witness was correct. The bank book (which began with July, 1882,) was endorsed by the bank “ E. Mulcock, Trust account in late W. Bramley’s estate.” At the interview with Mrs Bramley, at which the servant was present, witness showed Airs Bramley that she had a balance of £l3 due to her. Told her he was prepared to give her any sum she required, but it must go on as her next year’s income, unless she took it as a loan. Eeferring to witness’ loan told Airs Bramley that he could find use for £IOO or £2OO. Did not say he wanted it altogether ; but witness suggested that he should use the money till it should come to a sum suitable to be let out on mortgage, and Mrs Bramley agreed to this. Witness advertised the trust money before Mr Wilson took it. Air Wilson took it because no other investment could be found for it. Witness never told Airs Bramley he was short of money, and was obliged to borrow £IOO from the estate. The money produced no interest in the Bank, when witness took some rather than it should lie dormant. Could swear that witness never did anything in the estate without consulting Mrs Bramley, except as to the mortgage of Fulton’s. Mrs Bramley knew of the moneys invested in the Kaiapoi Factory above the £SOO, as witness gave her to understand that as money accumulated he would place it in the Factory till he could obtain investments on mortgage. In ISSI, Mrs Mulcock did not several times ask witness to let her know how things were going on, and witness did not reply that she should know when Mr Wilson returned. About six months after Mr Bramley’s death she complained that her income was not as much as she expected. Witness told her he could not make the amounts more than they were. Nothing was then said about Mr Wilson’s return from England. Told her then that Mr Wilson had examined the accounts, and witness would be very glad if she would get some person to examine them for her. In September, 1881, Mrs Bramley told witness she had decided on getting Mr Chapman to go through the accounts for her. Witness said he was quite willing, and saw Mr Wilson, who also agreed to it. Mr Chapman was not in any way prevented from looking at the whole of the accounts. He said he wanted to give Mrs Bramley a statement, and saw the books a second time. It was after that he (Chapman) put the memorandum in the margin that the accounts were correct. Never said Mrs Bramloy was ignorant and inexperienced. Gave her a rough statement of accounts every year. Airs Bramley and Mr Wilson declined to act in the management of the estate. There was no thought of charging interest or compound interest, on Mrs Bramley s overdraft. It was found that Mrs Bramley had been paid £OB 7s more than she was entitled to, but nothing was said about charging interest. Air Wilson was unable to attend, and could not be spoken to on business matters since his return from Wellington after the close of the last Parliamentary session. Cross-examined: The accumulated fund showed that Mrs Bramley had received too much. It was shown that she had received a portion of what should have gone to the daughters. Nothing was said at the interview with Mr Wilson in October, 1881, about the amount she had received in excess. The only occasion that Mrs Bramley over asked how the account stood was when it was fixed up about Mr Chapman. She did not tell witness she had boon to Mr Peel. Did not consult her by letter until the dispute arose. Had no specific recollection of any particular occasion when Mrs Bramley gave permission for investment to witness, to Air Wilson, or the Kaiapoi Factory, but she and witness saw each other once or twice a week. This closed defendants’ case. It was settled by consent that the decree should be moved for in Banto on the pleadings and evidence. The question of the construction of the will to bo argued at the same time. At 1.15 p.m. the Court adjourned till 11 a.m. on Monday (to-day), when the special jury case of Duncan v. Booth will be taken*