THE O’LEARY CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4303, 12 March 1901, Page 2

THE O’LEARY CASE

CLAIM AGAINST AN ESTATE,

in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr Justice Cooper and a jury, the hearing was continued of the action between Keady O’Leary, of Palmerston North, contractor, and the Public Trustee.

Mr Skerreit, with him Mr lanes, appeared for Keady O’Leary, and Mr Treadwell for tho Public Trustee. Mr Aaron Baker was foreman of the jury. This was a claim by Keady 0 Leary for £583 16s for services rendered and £ll7 17s for money advanced by him to Ins brother, the late Timothy O’Leary, hotelkeeper, and a counter-claim by the Public Trustee, as administrator, for £4OO for money lent by the deceased to Keady O’Leary. Keady O’Leary, the plaintiff in the claim, further examined, said his brother Timothy sold out from the Kailway Hotel in May, 1898. When witness said on Saturday that he staved with Timothy till May, 1899, lie meant May, 1898. Other dates which witness gave on Saturday should he altered as to the year.

By Mr Treadwell: Witness fixed the dates between which ho was attending to his brother partly by references to tho dates of contracts, partly by memoranda which ho had, and partly by recollection. Witness 'had expected that Timothy would pay him for his attendance as much ar> he (witness) marie at his contracts. Witness wanted to charge £1 a, day, but his solicitor in Wanganui advised hiin to put it down at 12s. Witness thought his brother Timothy would live a long time if he got out of tlie hotel business. Timothy sometimes talked about his will. Witness could not remember tho words he used. Tire effect of them, was that each member of the family wlouldi got something. Witness understood that he would got the same as the other brothers. He thought that after Timothy's death he (witness) would, get his pay for attesnd 1 - ancG as well as his share of the property. When witness was staying with Timothy he, did not pay anything for board and lodging. 'He did not pay for drinks that ho had in Timothy’s hotel; he paid for drinks that ho had putside. Witness had borrowed money from Timothy and also from, his sister Hannah. The money was in both cases repaid by witness out of tho proceeds of contracts. When witness borrowed money from Hannah he did not like to bother Timothy for money which was owing to witness. Witness knew that Hannah had money as well as Timothy. You preferred ‘ get into your sister’s debt sooner than collect money that was due to you from Timothy?— She didn’t mind 1 .,..

Wiir.GSS, further cross-examined, said that Timothy and himself wore very good! friends. Although Timothy .might bo unable to sign a cheque when he got up in the morning, he might be_ able to do bo when ho had steadied himself with a whisky or two. (Laughter.) Witness did not know whether the claim which ho uqw made was tire, same as that which he first made against the Public Trustee. The decleration produced bore his signature. It was dated the 21st July, 1900. Mr Treadwell said the declaration was one made by Keady O’Leary that Timothy owed him £216 Is for cash lent and money paid 1 . Witness said ho could not say why he did not include in the declaration the claim for sendees rendered which he Mow made. ‘ I Mr Skerrett said that an amended claim, was put in. During the cross-examination of the witness as. to discrepancies between the two claims, Mr Skerrott said that some items had been abandoned when the later daim was made out. The difference between the two claims was made up of cheques drawn by Keady O’Leary as “ payable to self.” Witness said he charged these cheques in the first instance because they were spent by him in looking after his brother. They were for hotel and travelling expenses. Timothy gave away money pretty well to anyone who asked: him for it. ( ■ His Honor pointed out that witness had said he did not like to bother Timothy for money duo for his (witness’s) services. , ”, ;

Witness was next questioned as to his partnership with his brothel* Jereniiali in a farm at-Pordell. He said Timothy gave him (witness) £4OO to enable hint, to go into the farm. Timothy was to pay 6 percent, interest on the overdraft which was obtained. Mr Hurley said to Timothy, “You had better get an acknowledgment for the £4oo.'’ Timothy replied, “No, I give him that.” No acknowledgment was given by witness. In September, 1899, witness gave Timothy a receipt ;for the £4OO, which bore an acknowledgment that 6 per cent, interest per annum was to he paid fdr the money. The acknowledgment meant that Jeremiah was to pay that interest if he hadi the use of the money. Witness subsequently wanted to have the receipt tom up, so that there might be ne more bot her about it. (Laughter.). The .feceipt was given in order that Timothy might look after witness’s wife in case of witness’s deathWhen the farm was sold, witness got about £450 front the proceeds. ‘ Jeremiah Sweeney said that Timothy O’Leary told him that he had made Keady a present of £4OO. i Cross-examined by Mr Treadwell, who asked for the exact words, witness said that Timothy said, “T have lent him £4oo.*’ AVitness said this twice, but on each occasion corrected himself, and said the -words were, “ I have made him Si xiresent of £400.” Witness told Timothv it was the least he could do. Timothy replied, “That is not all; I am going to pay him for every day he looked after me.” .... '., Edward O. Hurley, solicitor, said, that Timothy O’Leary practically poohpoohed the idea of getting security tor the £4OO which was paid over to Heady. Timothy said something to tlm effect that the money would be Keady s, any way. AVitness- did not think Timothy wanted the" : 'monoy : again. Timothy would not take a. receipt for it. At the time Timothy looked as if he would not live very long, and he seemed to realise it.Constable Minogue said that on one occasion Timothy O’Leary said to him, “Keady is getting better wages from me than lie could make out of any piece ol land.” When mentioning the gift of the £4OO, Timothy said, “That’s nothing to what I will give Ready yet. Peter H3§tic, , labourer 7 said.. tiiax Keady looked ‘after tke management of the hotel when he was staying there. He sometimes paid witness his wages. By Mr Treadwell: Keady ran the'bar for his brother for the last six months before Timothy sold'out from the hotel.; Birring that time Keady was manager. . John Hurley, Norah Sweeney and Cornelius O’Leary were the next witnesses. The latter said, that his brother Keady was the only one of the family who could manage. Timothy, who had said he would' pay Keady well for his trouble. ..

Michael Hogan, storekeeper, and Thos Young, contractor, were the other - witnesses in support of the claim. The latter said that Keady O'Leary could i earn about £1 a day at contracting.. i

Mr Treadwell, after a short openiu., address, called, £ t i lo doccasHannah O Leary, ■ 0 time cd, who said she wasro Mrs housemaid in tho I| |j lo IStli Mal T ovStixing at the hotel; she was nearly ev cry tiring dW not receive housekeeper. V ' ( , lcft , the hotel. any wages unU inn . in no tcs When ho hrt hc paA c as onjccou ),er duties m the hoW )ier to the receipt tor imru, am* Tr rn( lv take care of it. On one occasion, ivea y asked her to tear np the rec ?‘ p .V . Vid ‘‘Yes for £200.” She said thu because Thnothy bad -said sonfetbmK which led her to behove she was tuiite d to half of the money. Timothy nutv than once said ho would have to go Ford ell, as Keady had not sent the receipt for the £4OO. Keady once put h-s fist against witness’s mouth, and demanded tiro receipt. . . , By Mr Skerrott.: After I lie affair A tho receipt, witness had not. spoken to Keady’s wife. Timothy was on tho pnmt of death several times through bis excessive drinking. When Timothy was very bad, witness used to semi tor Keady. When Keady! came he used to watch Timothy in order (o pro vent liim from drinking. On the 281 h Soptember, 1809, when the £4OO was advanced, Timothy was npt out oi tho house, to the best of witness's belief. Sho did not rememher his going out oi tho house between the 4lh and 28ih of that month.

Jeremiah. O’Leary, hotelkeeper, a brother-in-law of the deceased’s, said that, Keady O’Leary told him he would bo very glad to go in with him lor the farm at Fordcll, if bo (Koady) could get tho money. Soon afterwards ho said ho had got the money. Subsciiueuily ho said ho had borrowed the money at 0 per cent. On a later date he said ho had borrowed tho money' and would pay it back honestly'. Koady one evening offered to lake £IOO for his share in tho farm. He said, also, he would _do something serious—-that he would kill Ids sister. Ho addeil that he would kill the three of them. (Laughter.) Witness, thought Keady’s idea was' to have the throats repeated iu order to frighten Hannah and cause her to tear up tins receipt, for tho £4OO. By Mr Skerrott: Timothy also told witness the £4OO was borrowed.

Mrs Ellen O’Leary, wife of the last witness, also gave evidence.

Alexander P. Webster, ma.pa.gcr of tho Bank of Australasia, at Palmerston North, said‘his record was that he* arranged for an advance of £IOO to bo made to Timothy O’Leary to enable (bn latter to lend, the money to his brother Keady. - By Mr Skcri’ctt; His recollection, based on the rpeord and! his course of business, was that, Timothy was present. It was a rule without exceptions that the person to whom an advance was made must bo present when it was arranged for.

It was pointed out that an entry in Mr Hurley’s diary went,'to show that Timothy was not present. An extract from the diary was nut in. This was all the evidence. The Court, 'at 5.50 p.m., adjourned till this morning.