GIFT OR A LOAN?

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18273, 14 December 1922, Page 11

GIFT OR A LOAN?

FURNITURE FOR EMPLOYEE.

MARRIED MAN'S ACTION.

SUIT FOR RETURN FAILS.

! An unusual action in regard to the ownership of furniture was heard in the j Magistrate's Court by Mr. J. E. Wilson, I S.M. The plaintiff, Edward Ernest Muri ray (Mr. Goldstine), claimed for the ' return of furniture supplied by him to ! the defendant, Mrs. E. M. Irwin (Mr. ; Singer) or for £48 12s 6d, the value ; thereof. The defence was that the fur- | niture was an absolute gift.

Plaintiff, a draper, of Auckland, said he engaged defendant at a salary of £1 a week, and further assisted her by gifts of clothes. Defendant took a room in Auckland and he told her he would furnish it. The arrangement was that defendant should have the use of the furniture, so long as she remained in his employ. At the same time he increased her salary to £2 a week. The defendant left his employ last September, and he told her he expected the furniture to be returned. It had not been returned.

Mr. Singer: Was there trouble with your wife over this lady ?—I cannot say anything about trouble with my wife. Mr. Singer: Is it not a fact that your wife went to Mrs. Irwin and told her she was making her (Mrs. Murray) jealous ?—I told the women to fight their own battles.

Defendant said the plaintiff asked her to come to town and he would give her the furniture. Plaintiff had never suggested that the furniture was lent as long as she remained in his employ. In August she met Mrs. Murray in Queen Street, and the latter said her husband was always speaking about witness, and that was making her (Mrs. Murray) jealous. Mrs. Murray wanted her to leave her employment, and she agreed to do so. The magistrate said he did not think he was getting information of all the facts, and could only come to a conclusion by innuendo. He gave judgment for the defendant, with costs.