Meek v. Attwood.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, 13 June 1891, Page 2

Meek v. Attwood.

>.- I*-;"T _Y_ AN INTERESTING OOUBTSHip. The civil sessions Qf jthe, j3u|>ren_e Court were resumed : pn morning at 10 o'clock, before His Honour Mr Justice Bichmon^K The case taken was^-ihat •oi'Meek v. Attwood, in:. which th^Jplaintiff, William Joseph Meek, settler, of Wellington, sought to tegtfttqr|o|9es« sion of a quantity of jeweUe-yPRjMh he alleged he had lent to- the-defend-ant, Alice Attwood. ■; ; '.unti! Mr Gully; appeared for ithe plafintiff, and Mr Hall for the defeifdairt. . In his statement of claim -plaintiff alleged that on or about «%be >10th of December last he lent th. dhfendanfc, at her request, the following . articles of jewellery r^-Onegbild ring, ''.>•■■■•■ '.<.- : f :',.-» X-.*.f.f

»

set with pearls, value £8 ; one gold ring, set with five diamonds, £10; I one ne.klefc and locket, set with diamond and rubies, £15; one bracelet, set with diartjnds and rubies, £12. He also alleged that these articles were lent to defendant on her departure for Christchurch, on the understanding that in the event of her not marrying him, the articles were to be returned ; that the defendant having refused and failed to marry him, had detained the jewellery and wrongfully converted it to her own use. The present action was therefore brought that the defendant shou'd be ordered either to give the articles back or v' pay their value, £70, and £30 damages for their detention. The. plaintiff gave evidence in accordance with the above and on cross-examination by Mr Hall, the witness stated he was 68 years of ago, and had met Miss Attwood at Mrs Moore's boarding-house He proposed first, and made inquiries, about her afterwards. She told him , ftjatfi: ha4;ian income of £50, derived from property left by her father. I. c ' informed her that he 1 had house property. When he gave her the engageineht ring Miss Attwood told Bim she did not wish to wear it for a while, as she did not wish' people to „ know, they, were engaged so soon -"• ; after the deat ji of witness 1 wife. The diamond' ring the defendant was so anxious to wear cost £40, and the pearl ring £8. , Mr Hall here asked the witness whether he was not proud of being engaged to such a young lady as r Miss Attwood. Witness : A what ! Call her a ! young, lady. I should say she was ■- 88. She told me several ages ranging irom 22 to 25. I think 26 was tte last I heard. Why. if she put a pair of specs on she'd look at least 60. He promised her that she should share his property with his two children if she married him. The values he put on the articles were the prices he gave for them. The letter produced/dated January 19, 1891, was his. In it he stated that he had been much disappointed, as he had engaged a person to come and take care of his children, and now that if she again put off their marriage he would have to keep the " ' person another fortnight. The young :: ; lady he had engaged to look after his ,-.-. children wa.s now his wife, and she was in his house when he wrote to , , defendant on January 24th. The .;;',',' filter referred to was to the effect . . uihat. he would never make a settleon the defendant, and stated he ( j ywould keep* all his property under _ his bwri control, and at his' death it r would be left to those most deserving of it. Those' about him would be treated according to their treatment of him.' He also stated in this letter, that if the defendant married him- she would have no servants, no larger house, and no buggy. Re,-examined by Mr Gully, witness staged t^t he had been married twice!,, and found matrimony a suce.ss on both occasions — a great success; this second time. His present quite satisfied with him, VY r fti_d did not ask 'for' a settlement. t'i. Sis idea of marrying again was to V obtain a protectress for bis ohildren. """'' 10 reply, to Mr rlall, the witness stated that his present wife's age was 20. Annie/Meek (aged 14), daughter ', of tfee plaintiff, was oalled, and gave evidence that she had often seen : ! Misk Attwood wearing the diamond ring, prbduced. Miss Attwood had told Her that the ring was not hers, but she was to have it if she miarried witness' • father, and she (witness) 'was to have the other. The defend- ' fant did not often speak of the ring. Alice Attwood, the defendant, being sworn, deposed that she was a native of Christchurch, and both her „ .parents were dead. She came to ' WeUington to visit her sister at .Johnsonville and to get medical advice. She went to Mrs Moore's boarding-house in Cuba-street in February, 1890. Mr Meek came to lodge at Mrs Moore's a few F weeks after his first wife's death in August or September. Mr Meek had shown her all his , ! jewellery during the first week of his " residence at Mrs Moore's* When „._Mr. Meek asked her to marry him ;' Bhe consented, but told him not to speak of their engagement for the Li 4.-_.e*be.n|r|aß it wns r so soon after his wife's death— and al.o because thej' were staying at the same place. Plaintiff went to Dunedin. When plaintiff came back, ho asked her why _he was not wearing the ring, and she told him that it hurt her and that; she did not like it— she had been led to expect a very nice ring, f> and th.B-one was not such. Plaintiff then told her she might have one :«* J fl^ (, the two diamond rings, one of '*""■• which was _pr his daughter Annie. ' r 'Re brought the two rings frOm his ' safe, nnd let her choose one. She 5^036 one, and he then .said the other .K/SWjIV-W. -be for Annie. Nothing was said about his only lending the ring J i Kbr. Plaintiff left Moore's house iprtly afterwards at her request, laintiff put the diamond ring on 'ihe.. engagement finger, but did not .._wy; that it was only a loan. She wore the diamond ring subsequently. .Defendant gave the ring baok to plaintiff one night when they had _. joma words. Next day Mr Meek ~ apologised, and pave her the ring ' again* Since then the plaintiff never

had tho ring again. He later on pressed her to have some more of his jewellery, and she chose the bracelet, but refused the necklet and locket, which, however, he left with her. Plainliif made no conditions •ibout the return of these articles. She was 24 years of age Cross-examined by Mr Gully : f-he had never been engaged before, though .li 9 was 24 years of age. She did not think the pearl ring good enough, and if Mr Meek said it cr.-st him £2 sho did not believe him. She had male no enquiries as to plaintiff's position, I ut he had enquired aud found out that she had an income. It was at the instance of her trustee that she wrote to the p ain'iff asking for a settlement before her m-image. Annie Moore was the next witness, and corroborated the main details of the defendant's evidence. In cross - examination, witness stated that Miss Attwood had worn tlie diamond ring regularly after ifc was givon her. Siegfreid Kohn (call i'd) gave evidence as to the value of the articles. The pearl ring, he thought, would not be of greater va'ue than 803 to 85s ; the diamond ring wan, nt the outside, worth -625 at the present day, but he would not like to buy it at that figure. Tbe locket nnd necklet was not worth more than £5 or £6 ; the bracelet was, he thought, worth £7 10s. These were present values, but the articles might have been worth more years ago. His Honor summed up, pointing out that there was a conflict of evidence, but there was no doubt that if a man hands over jewellery to a girl to whom he is engaged the presumption is that the article* are presents. If the engagement is eventually broken off the man has no legal claim to the jewellery he has given to his erstwhile betrothed, but of course it is generally the custom for a girl under such circumstances to return all presents so received. If the jury were satisfi- d that thu articles in the present case wero on y lent to the defendant, then the pl.-in-tiff would succeed ; but if they w- re of opinion that the jewellery was given as presents, then they would have to find for defendant. The jury retired at 5.85 p.m., and returned to Court at 6.80 with a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered accordingly, the question of costs being reserved for decision by the Judge. — N. Z. Times. An Unscrupulous Foe Creeps upon us unawares like an .assassin in the dark, and whose dangerous proximity we never suspect until it makes the last fatal c utch on some vital organ. We are always warned in ample time of the impending danger, but with criminal carelessness neglect these warnings : That t red feeling, those aching limbs, and that grand feeing one day and seedy condition the next, the sour taste on waking ia a morning, and the frequent sick and splitting headaches', all make their debut before serious illness sets in. Ah or auy of these symptoms indicate the approach of disease, they are faithful signs that the liver and kidneys are not doing their duties, that the morbid and effete matter instead of being eliminated from the system, is being retained, and is positively poisoning and de. stroyitg the whole physica* structure, Neglect in suoh cases is criminal, recourse to rational treatment should be had at once, Clements Tonic should be taken to strengthen the digestion, purify and fortify the blood, to stimulate the liver and brace up the kidneys, to resolve and eliminate the poisonous urea. Liver and kidney complaints are the most prevalent diseases of this country, and so long as we consume suoh large quantities of animal food and condiments, and drink so freely of tea and stimulants, so long will this unhealthy condition last. It is this mode of life that causes suoh numbers of deaths from heart disease, Bright's disease, dropsy, cancer, inflammation and enlargement of the liver, and similar causes, all of whioh herald their approach by feelings of lassitude, headaohe, langour, &c, and if prompt treatment at ooc is adopted by a regular use of Clements Tonic, the prog.es of disease is arrested, the stomach, liver and kidneys resume their normal aotion and the poisonous accumulations are expelled the system and normal health is restored. That Clements Tonic is reliable ia' proved beyond all question and we have grateful beneficiaries in every town and village who are continually writing ub in terms similar to the following :— St. Leonards, Sydney, - Dear Sir, — 1 can with pleasure bear witness to the great relief I havo received from the use of Clemj:n_s Tonic and Dk Fletcher's Pills. I have been a great sufferer for 11 years from liver disease, with at times considerable en» largement, which caused a swel'ing in the aide under the ribs and was very painful, the abdomen, bowels, &0., always felt very tender on pressure, with most obstinate constipation for whioh I took Flexchek's Pills, the first dose caused a copious evacuation and gave great relief, and I thought I was all right, but after a week . was as bad again as before, 1 again had recourse to Fletcher's Pills but I took Clements Tonic as well this time and con tinued it for a couple of months, after the first dose I felt better and got rid of all the symptoms I us.d to have, as flushings of heat and cold, splitting headaches, pains in the side and small of the back, extreme lassitude, and the general feeling, of -all-right to-day, seedy to-morrow,' all these symptoms with, many others I used to have, but now thanks to Clements Tonic lam quite cured. I can get up in a morning refreshed by the night's rest and can eat a good breakfast, whereas before tafeing the medioine I scarcely ever could eat anything, and when I did it nearly always made me vomit, but now I am quite well and have been so for 5 months, I have no cause to fear a relapse. I don't mind your publishing my qase if you add nothing to it, as it may bring relief to similar sufferers,—Yours very truly, H. Gabkell."

In allotting the shares, the directors -will have regard to priority of application, and not more than 100 shares will be allotted to any one person. In submitting an Association of this character to the public ifc is only necessary to say that it is in no j sense a speculative undertaking. The experiences of similar enterprises in the has shown tbera fo be not only dividend paying, but productive of many collateral advantages ; ro'tho producer ; minimisin™ ns they I do all charges, tbey necessarily com- j pel merchants and shipo wning firms ■to lower to a reasonable point their | rates of -profit-- commissions, freights, &c. The fact that the New Zealand Farmers' Association of Canterbury -(Christchurch") last yo.ar hart a total profit of __ 10,804 5s s_-io distribute, I and that the Canterbury Farmers •Assdciation (Timaru) and other similar 'Associations are alb in' a most satisfactory financial condition, speaks for itself as to the safety of the capital fo be embarked. p The,.jcentyi^p^si.ipn-'of the' City Fdf a'nd- its magnificent capacity for the cheap distribution of spVo|ucts to all parts of the world, niajka it out ] prominently . as the natural centre for the present Company's operations. Tbe recent connection of the city with Napier on tliQ.Eust Coast, and New Plymouth ' } on ihe^e^^a^§% 'through lines ' ot railway ; v vrilf enaUn the settlers riqr.these! districts to share equally in -fife advantages, which will accrue, to shareholders; in the Wellington Provincial District from having at their 'door the best and cheap.pt harbour in the Colony as a distributing oentre. * -* v " r -* ■■'. . .-. . .-...' '•' '.'