WIDOW SUES FOR RETURN OF MONEYS

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6677, 2 August 1928, Page 10

WIDOW SUES FOR RETURN OF MONEYS

WHICH SHE STATES WERE LOANS NOT GIFTS. SUPREME COURT ACTION. In the Palmerston North Supremo Court yesterday afternoon, the Hon. Mr, Justice Smith was asked to determine a claim made by Margaret Carroll, widow, of Palmerston North (Mr. M. H. Oram) against Prank and Alphonsus Carroll, of Glen Oroua, farmers (Mr. A. M. Ongley) for the repayment of £449/10/(plus interest), allegedly lent to them. Plaintiff’s statement of claim was that prior to and during the years 192(5 and 1927, the defendants, together with William Carroll, husband of plaintiff, carried on business at Glen Oroua as farmers. Tho plaintiff advanced the defendants for use in their business £449/10/- as follows: June 11, 1926, £100; August 19, 1926, £75; September 14, 1926, £124/10/-; February 10, 1927, £100; June 2, 1927, £SO. The defendants, she said, agreed to pay interest on the loans but no, specific rate was agreed upon. William Carrol (her husband) died on April 5, 1928, and the defendants had since carried .on tho farm. Plaintiff had applied for repayment of tho £449/10/- but defendants had refused. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed judgment for the moneys loaned together with interest. 1 ' The defence set up by Prank Carrol was that in 1926-27 he and his brother William were employed upon a farm belonging to their mother, and were not carrying on a business of any kind. He denied that plaintiff had lent them £75 on August 19, 1926, but admitted the loan of the other sums mentioned which, he stated, were not for the farming business but for the purchase of a car which was registered in the name of plaintiff. The circumstances were well known to plaintiff at, the time the moneys were lent and it was a term of tho loan that the moneys should not be repayable until such time as the mother of; defendants had paid off certain loans owipg by her to Messrs. Nathan and Company and Messrs, Dalgety and Company. These loans had not yet been repaid. • ■The defence of Alphonsus, Carroll was a denial that ho ever carried on business with Prank or William . However, if it was proved that plaintiff had lent him and his brothers jointly tho moneys claimed, it was a term of the loan that the money should not be repayable until such time as the moneys owing Messrs. Nathan and Company and Dalgety and Company had been paid. • Plaintiff, in evidence,' said she was married to her husband (now deceased) inf Sydpey in 1926, and came back with him to New Zeaffih". She brought with her £4OO while she also had a deposit slip for £l5O in Sydney. Of the £4OO she spent £IOO on a motor-car, £IOO on personal effects, while £2OO was put to her credit in the Post Office Savings Bank. Later, being called urgently back to Sydney, she arranged that her husband could operate on her account, PrOm her bank book she knew that £75 had been withdrawn while sho was away, whereas only £45 had reached

her in Australia. She came back to Glen Oroua with £SO, and intended returning that amount to the back. Her husband returned her the balance of the £75 but made the suggestion that she should help the farming business financially. The she agreed to do, and handed deceased £75, the latter giving it over to Prank. On Soptcmbcr'l4, sho advanced a further sum of £124/10/- to her husband and Prank, Alphonsus at that time being away in England. These advances were not gifts but loans. Tho three brothers discussed tho, car and she agreed to advance £IOO toward its purchase. The-car was registered in her name, but neither sho nor her husband ever got a driving license. Prank used it most. Carroll Bros, (by cheque) made the monthly payments to complete tho purchase of the car which defendants still possessed. Continuing witness said shearranged to draw upon her fixed deposit In Sydney, and in February paid from it £IOO into Carroll Bros, account. A further cheque of £SO was also paid into their account, in June, 1927. These two payments were also loans and when the last advance was made, her late husband had stated that they would bo able to repay her when the cows were in full flush. Nothing was, ever said of any liability toward Dalgcty’s or Nathan's. While her husband was. lying ill in hospital, she and tho two defendants were present one day when Alphonsus made the statement that they intended to repay her everything. On- another occasion Frank had said ho would never forget what she had done for them, when they were stuck. At no time had sho advanced money to Mrs. Carroll Sr. Mr. Ongley: Did you know that all tho father, mother, and three brothers were "getting was an allowance of £25 per month?—No. > Didn’t you know they had other liabilities to meet?—No. - At this stage tho Court was adjourned until 10 a.m. this morning.