DIRTY LINEN.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 2763, 3 October 1923, Page 9

DIRTY LINEN.

STRIFE IN TOKOMARU.

DOMESTIC REVELATIONS IN

COURT.

BRANDY AND CHICKEN-BROTH,

Petticoats and eggs were two ui»usual items in a claim in a civil action at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, and were indicative of the unusual details of the case. Mary Jan e McClure, of Tokomaru, proceeded against Dennis Murphy, labourer, of Palmerston North, claiming the sum of £3 0/3 for work alleged to have been done, and material and goods supplied to defendant and his wife, on or about the month of April, 1923, full particulars of which had been supplied. The claim, in detail, was as follow; “Sewing, £1; girl’s dress, 18/-; petticoat, 9/6; three dozen eggs, at 1/9 per dozen, 5/3; making cake, 7/6.” Mr, Oram appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Rutherfurd for defendant. Plant!ff, in giving evidence, stated that the wife of defendant was in April, 1922, living at the i-esidence of her mother. Mrs. Murphy was a frequent visitor to the home of witness, and following a domestic event, Mrs. 'Murphy made arrangements with witness to do some sewing, also borrowing a child’s dress from witness. The clothes were never returned. Witness called upon Mrs. Murphy some time later and requested the return of tile clothes, but defendant’s wife stated that she was still using them. FAMILIAR WITH THE COURT. On rising to examine witness, Mr. Rutherfurd asked her if g he had not taken Court action against a person he named, and also others, about a dozen in all. Some of these witness admitted, and denied the rest. Mr. Rutherfurd. And did you not try to get a boy expelled from school ? —After some hesitation, witness admitted this. But you were not successful ?—No. At this stage, Mr. Oram rose and objected to the manner of cross-ex-amination, stating that these cases had nothing to do with the one at present before the Court. Mr. Rutherfurd was allowed to continue. Mr. Rutherfurd: Is it not true that nobody in Tokomaru will have anything to do with you, because you are always bringing actions against people ? —No, it is not true. Mr. Rutherfurd: In short, you are the bug-bear of Tokomaru ? —No, 1 am not —you cannot prove it. I can prove it. Witness’s husband (sotto voce); Liar!

“UNDESIRABLE ACQUAINTANCE.”

In giving evidence, defendant stalco that neither he nor his wife had known anything of the clothes unti> a bill for the amount was received from a commission agent. Plaintift was known to’ accused and his wife, but defendant regarded her as an undesirable acquaintance, and had told his wife so. Witness also did not favour haying his wife’s sewing done by plaintiff. “ She la known in an Tokomaru to be a mischief-maker and a scandal-monger.”

THE CAKE THAT WAS DIVIDED

Following the luncheon adjournment, Edith Florence Murphy, wife or defendant, took the box. She stated that she stayed with her mother at Tokoinavu in 1922. Witness denied all knowledge of the clothing mentioned in the claim. Questioned by Mr. Oram as to the item in plaintiff’s claim, "baking cake, 7/6,” she said; “ Yes, ‘Mrs. McClure made a cake for us. I provided the brandy, and my mother all the rest of th e ingredients. Mrs. McClure baked the cake. She then brought it over and cut it unequally, taking home the bigger portion. She made no mention of payment for the cake, as my mother washed for Mrs. McClure.” Continuing, witness said: “Mrs. McClure brought some chicken broth over once and when I "went over to thank her, she said, ‘ don’t thank me, it was from my neighbour’s fowls. T cut their heads off and put them in the pot.’ I told her she was a wicked woman. Even the children cheek her. She cannot go along the street but children call out after her.” To Mr. Oram, witness denied all, knowledge of the clothing mentioned in the claim. She declared that the claim was concocted, plaintiff’s aim being to drag through the Court the names of witness and her husband, that th e latter might lose his job on the railway.* Children in Tokomaru had called out after witness and said that witness's husband would soon be dismissed from tho railway. Witness admitted that plaintiff had visited her when she and her husband resided in Morris-street. The visitor was provided with lunch and also afternoon tea. Mr. Murphy was sitting abom five yards away the while, and could not tell what witness and Mrs. McClure were talking about. ’Mr. Oram (In commanding and stentorian tones): Do you mean to say that your husband, who is sitting about five yards away from me now, cannot hear what I am saying ? Witness; Yes, he can hear, if you speak loudly, but not if you speak in a friendly tone. , Examined in regard to the Item "three dozen eggs,” witness said: " 1 did not receive three dozen eggs from Mrs. McClure. I have not had three dozen eggs since I was married three years ago.” THE MOTHER’S STORY. Mrs. Canard, mother of Mrs. Murphy, stated in regard to the sewing included in the claim that her daughter had no need to have sewing done by Mrs. McClure, as the former had had her sewing done by Mrs. Webb, or Tokomaru. Mrs. McClure heself was not able to do all her sewing, and had to have some of it done by other woman. The cake was baked by Mrs. ‘McClure in appreciation of household duties by witness. " Mrs. McClure is a woman who cannot hold her tongue, and she even goes out and mocks school children on the road. When I was washing for her, she went round telling her neighbours that I washed dirty.” " One or the other side is lying,”