THE O’LEARY CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4304, 13 March 1901, Page 2

THE O’LEARY CASE.

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE. In the Supreme Court yesterday, before Air Justice Cooper and a jury, the bearing was concluded of the action between Keady O’Leary, of Palmerston North, contractor, and the Public trustee. Air Skerrett. with him Air limes, appeared for Keady O’Leary, and Air Treadwell for the Public Trustee. Air Aaron Baker was foreman of the jury. This was a claim by Keady O’Leary for £583 16s for services rendered and £11? 17s for money advanced by him to hlr. brother, the late Timothy O’Leary, hotelkeeper, and a counter-claim by the Public Trustee, as administrator, for £4OO for money lent -y the deceased to Ready O’Leary. Air Skerrett abandoned Keady O’Leary’s claim for money advanced, with the exception of three items. A computation was put in, showing that, excluding Sundays, Keady O’Leary had been in attendance on his brother Timothy for 7XO days, which, at 12s per day. would give a sum of £426, His Honor, in his summing up, referred to the discrepancy between tbe declaration. sent in to the Public Trustee by Keady O’Leary as to bis brother Timothy’s indebtedness to him, and the claim which he made in the present action. He said the jury must take it that no amended claim was sent in to tlie Public Trustee before the writ was issued. If there had been an amended claim it would have been produced. It had to be ■ considered by the jury as a possible alternative ' solution, that the £4OO might have been given Jiy Timothy O’Leary to his brother Keady as part payment for the latter’s services. The issues submitted to the jury, and their returned after an hour and twenty minutes’ retirement, were to the following effect; 1. Is Keady O’Leary entitled to recover from the Public Trustee, as administrator of the estate of Timothy O’Leary, deceased, items 13, 16 and 19. or any of them—namely, 13, cab-hire to Stevenson, £1; 16, money paid to Timothy, £2 3s; 19, money paid to Timothy, £2; total, £5 3s?—Yes. 2. Is Keady O’Leary entitled to recover from the Public Trustee', as administrator of tho estate of Timothy O’Leary, any, and, if so, what sum, of money for services alleged by him to have been rendered to the said Timothy O’Leary?—Yes ; £26. 3. .Was the payment of £4OO made by Timothy O’Leary to Keady O’Leary, on or about the 29th September, 1899, a gift or a loan ?—A gift in part payment for services rendered. 4. Is the Public Trustee, as administrator of tho estate of Timothy O’Leary, entitled to recover from Keady O’Leary the said sum of £4oo?—No. 5. If so, is tho Public Trustee, as such administrator, entitled to recover from Keady O’Leary interest on the said sum of £4OO from tho date of the payment of snob sum at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum?—(No answer required). ... His Honor, in thanking the jury for tho cons ; dc-ration which they had given to the case, said: I quite agree with the verdict you have arrived at. I think you: have done substantial justice between tho .parties. Judgment' was entered for Keady O’Leary on his claim for £3l 3s, with costs'on the .lowest scale, one extra day, £ls 15s, and second counsel, £5 ss. On the counter-claim judgment was entered for Keady O’Leary without costs. ■ Ills Honor said ho thought the verdict _ ought to be satisfactory to both parties. Tho case was a proper one for the Public Trustee to have- brought before the Court.