CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 293, 8 November 1934, Page 12

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

FARM AT RONGOTEA

DECISION RESERVED

In. the Supreem Court to-day, the case was concluded before His Honour Mr Justice Blair in which Alvino Ettie AJbertine JJottchcr, ol tea, claimed the possession of a Macre farm at Rongotea and the payment of £IOO from Percy Leonard Bottcher, a dairy factory hand, alsooi Rongotoa, her son. Mr J. M. Cordon appeared for plaintiff and Mr H. R. Cooper for defendant. His Honour reserved his decision. Giving evidence yesterday afternoon, Clara Elizabeth Bottchcr, wife ol defendant said that since her marriage she hau lived at the Bottcher homestead. Witnoss bad helped her husband with the milking, feeding the pigs and had also drawn water for the stock fi'om wells. Until witness’s sister-in-law had returned home some months ago witness had done most of the housework. Defendant had done practically all the farm work. In opening the case for plaintiff Mr Gordon said it would be argued that there had not been a contract. Plaintiff gave evidence that she bad not at any time made any agreement with her son, defendant,. He had never wanted to make an agreement with witness. Before he was married he had not given her any of his wages and had lived at home. When the daughters had been at home before they were married they had done a good deal of the farm work. Witness ran the farm when she was able to do so. Sometimes defendant would help her. When witness went to the South Island to see her daughter she had arranged that factory cheques should be paid to defendant. At that time defendant was running the farm. Witness had never had any conversation with defendant as_ to the contents of her will. After his marriage defendant had carried on the farm in the same manner as it had been carried on by witness. Witness had never had any arrangement that defendant should use a portion of his wages on the farm; he was allowed to please himself. There had been no need for him to use any wages on the farm as the factory cheques could have been drawn upon. There had been a disagreement between defendant’s wife and witness’s daughter, who was at home. Witness had had no conversation with Mr Bell with regard to an agreement with defendant, and there had never been any talk with Mr Fox with regard to any such agreement.

Cross-examnied, witness said defendant had managed the farm for her. Defendant received the cheques and witness would sign them. Before he was married defendant had not managed the place, he had merely helped witness with the cows. Witness did not know anything of defendant using his wages on the farm, with the factory cheques, for some years. If defendant had reduced the mortgage on the farm with his wages witness would l>e prepared to make those wages good to him, but witness did not know that such had been the case. Witness knew nothing of the mortgage being reduced from £550 to £175.

George Conrad Petersen, solicitor, of Palmerston North, gave evidence as to having prepared a will for plaintiff. Mrs Mabel Mary Cowie, of Bulls, daughter of plaintiff, gave evidence that she had assisted plaintiff with the milking, morning and night, when she was working in Rongotea before she was married. Several times witness had cashed the factory cheques and paid accounts on her mother’s behalf.

This concluded the evidence. and counsel proceeded to address the Court. Both dealt mainly with the legal aspects of the case and Mr Cooper was addressing the Bench when the case was adjourned until 9.30 a.m. to-day for further legal argument. When Mr Cooper resumed his address this morning he put in statements showing defendant’s personal expenses taken from the general family funds and defendant’s personal contributions, by way of wages, to that fund. Counsel submited that plaintiff had not proved her case and should be non-suited. He also submitted that the case as to the the alleged contract had gone practically uncontradicted.

His Honour said that the weight of evidence seemed to be in favour of the agreement as outlined by defendant. All the probabilities were in favour of some arrangement between the mother and son. The version of the matter as given by defendant was the more acceptable. Counsel then proceeded to submit that the Statute of Frauds had no application to the case and that plaintiff could not succeed on these grounds. Mr Gordon said the statement of defence had contained no such allegation as would support the submission for a non-suit.

His Honour, as stated, reserved his decision.