A DISPUTED RECEIPT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 10664, 31 January 1898, Page 6

A DISPUTED RECEIPT.

CLAIM FOR A REFUND OF PURCHASE i MONEY. CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, i Before Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, on Friday, a suit was commenced in which Thomas Steadman, seedsman, of Queen-street, claimed from Henry Fletcher, a mining prospector, also of Auckland, the sum of £10, and in the course of the hearing some very contradictory evidence was disclosed. Mr, Cotter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Jackson Palmer for the defendant. Tlio former counsel, in opening the case, stated that in August, 1896, his cliout paid defendant £10 for a twenty-fourth share in the Tongariro and Ruapehu special claims, the licenses for which were then appliod for by Fletcher. Mr, Steadman obtained a receipt, which stated that in the event of the licenses not being granted, the money was to be returned. Ho understood that ono defence to be raised was that the portion of the receipt relating to this return of the £10 was nob there when defendant signed. Mr. Cotter called Thomas Steadman and put in the receipt, which was written partly in plaintiff's and partly in defendant's hand. Tho portion referring to the refunding of the £10, in the event of the title nob being granted, boing in plaintiff's hand. Mr, Steadman stated that Fletcher was writing the receipt at his (Stoadman's) office, when witness was called away to attend a customer. On returning Fletcher said, " Your offico is rather dark, and I have no spectacles; you had better finish the receipt." Witness did so, and Flotchor then signed the document, It was now | exactly as ib was when Flotchor signed. Defendant had repeatedly told plaintiff that ho was the only ono of the syndicate who I had such a receipt. Mr. Fletcher had i stated that the claims were situated on I Crown lands, but it was subsequently 1 discovered that a portion of tho property 1 was on Kauri Timber Company's land, and ] difficulties arising with that body tho , eyndicato members decided to withdraw , the application. Fletcher had nob refunded i the £10. ,

In answer to Mr. Palmer, witness said he supposed lie and Fletcher and the other membors of the syndicate were partners. This closed plaintiff's case. Mr. Palmer asked that the case be struck oub, as a mining partnership had been disclosed, and in such a matter the Magistrate's Court had no jurisdiction. His Worship held that there was no partnership in tho right to the return of the £10 upon which plaintiff sued, Henry Fletcher was then called, and stated ho told Mr. Steadman before tho purchase that ho had hoard of 200 acros oub at Tairua, and the people connected with it had stated ib was on Crown land. Tim body of tho receipt in question was written by witness in his own house, and he tlion took it down to Mr. Stoadman'a office. Witness denied that tho portion of the recoipt referring to tho return of the money was there when he signed at Steadman's office. . Mr. Steadman's version of tho circumstances surrounding tho signing, was incorrect. Witness did not agree in any way to return the money. Tho 78 acres of the claims on Crown lands was nob taken up because the syndicate backed oub of ib, I and witness had not sufficient funds to take ib up himself. Mr. Cotter had pub in another receipt of a previous mining transaction (somewhat similar to that boforo tho Court) which was given by Fletcher to Steadman, and when examined 011 this document tho former

denied that tho latter portion was in it when lie signed. Questioned whore ho obtained the paper on which the receipt for the. £10 was written, witness said it was some that Mr. Steadman had given him a short time before. Witness believed he had still some like it at home. Mr. Cotter pointed oub to witness thab if the portion as to the conditional return of tho money had not been 011 the receipt there would have been an unusually broad blank between tho body of the receipt and tho signature, whereas witness's signature in other receipts was close up to the body, and asked for an explanation. Witness could nob say why I lie signed so far down the sheet. In answer to Mr. Palmer, witness said there was still room for the insertion of the words between the body and the signature. During his cross-examination, defendant stated some of the syndicate members had nob paid for their shares, of whom Mr.

obinson was one. Mr, Cotter called William Robinsor

agent, who was quite sure ho had paid Mr, Fletcher, and had a receipt. Mr, Cotter: "If Mr. Fletcher swears that you did nob pay him ?" Witness: "If he swears thab he is a sanguinary pcrverter of the blessed truth." His Worship : "Surely you know that is not tho way to speak when you are on oath. That kind of slang may do outside, but not here."

In answer to Mr. Palmer, witness said he had looked for the receipt, bub could nob find it, bub thought the amount had been paid by cheque, and he could produce the butt of tho book.

_ Mr. Palmer said Mr. Robinson's explanation of his payment was nob quite satisfactory, and suggested an adjournment in order to allow him to produce tho' documents.

Mr. Cotter consented on condition that defendant produced the paper similar to that on which the receipt was written ; that, be said, he had at homo.

| Mr. Brabant: "Is Mr. Steadman going to deny giving bim any paper, than !" Mr. Cotter: "Absolutely, your Worship." Mr. Palmer agreed to tills, and said he was only too anxious to hare the matter cleared up. The case was adjourned till next Friday. ■ '