REPULSED SUITOR FARES SECOND BEST IN LAW COURT ALSO

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6755, 7 November 1928, Page 5

REPULSED SUITOR FARES SECOND BEST IN LAW COURT ALSO

CLAIM FOE REPAYMENT OF LOAN NOT UPHELD. In tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning before Mr, J. L. Stout, S.M., George McKeeman, of Palmerston North, proceeded against Eliza Ann Robbie,, of Foxton, for the sum of £l2 as moneys allegedly lent on various dates at Palmerston North, Mr, Fletcher appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Ongley for defendant. George McKeeman, in evidence, stated that he had first met Mrs. Robbie when she had lived next door to his mother’s place in Milford road. On various occasions in Palmerston North, ho had lent Mrs. Robbie sums of £4, £3, and £3,,but had received no acknowledgment of the debt nor made any terms of repayment. Later, ho had visited Mrs. Robbie in Foxton and asked for repayment of the £l2. Defendant had denied owing him money, and had ordered him out of the house.

On being cross-examined by Mr. Ongley, plaintiff denied that he had threatened Mrs. Robbie when she refused to allow him to pay his attentions to her. He denied that he had said he would take the £l2 from her and tell her husband that she had had a male visitor while living in Milford road. Further, he denied that he had visited Mrs. Robbie at Foxton beach on three occasions, when such visits were distasteful to her.

Mr. Ongley submitted that plaintiff had endeavoured to force unwelcome attentions on Mrs. Robbie, and when ordered out of the place, he had attempted to blackmail her. Defendant stated in the box that sho was a married woman, living apart from her husband. After detailing plaintiff’s visits to her house while residing in Milford road, witness denied that she had ever borrowed money from McKeeman. He had sent her some newspapers containing racing news, but that was all sho had ever borrowed from him. A telegram* produced in Court, and containing reference to the return of papers, referred to these newspapers and not to money. McKeeman had paid unwelcome attentions to her and had invented excuses for visiting her house at Foxton, until she had been compelled to order him off.

The Magistrate, in giving his decision, commented that it seemed strange for plaintiff to have lent money, and received no acknowledgment of the loan. As far as the telegram was concerned, would it hear the construction put on it by plaintiff, that “papers” referred to money, or the construction put on it by defendant, that this word referred to newspapers ? However, it had not been proved to his satisfaction that the money had been lent. Plaintiff had" admitted visiting Foxton and it seemed from the evidence that if the money had been handed over, it had been as a gift, not as a Joan. Judgment would Therefore be for defendant, with expenses and costs.