A DUBIOUS DEAL

NZ Truth, Issue 135, 18 January 1908, Page 5

A DUBIOUS DEAL

a. JOHN HAMMONDS CURIOUS COURTSHIP" Wanted the Daughter but Got the Dog! MIXED MORALS AT PELORUS SOUNDS. ' An Awful Charge Against a Brother* • ■ The Crime of Incest Alleged.

"Truth" cannot vouch for the' respectability of a family named Laird who hang out m one or more of the bays of Pelorus Sound. Still, when it hears that Frederick Laird, aged 24, was the other day arrested and renyanded on a charge of having committed incest with his sister Elizabeth Laird, who is aged., 18, this paper is inclined to imagine that a missionary or two down m the district that is famous for its intelligent shark, or whatever "Jack" is, | would not come amiss. Moreover, "Truth" did not set out to make any I comment on the incest charge ; a •thing of that description speaks for itself, though it ought to make a suitable text for a sermon on morality. Anyhow, the Laird family, whioh sounds Scotch, and has a dash' of : the hated Campbell m it, does not seem to be of much account. . The family of which Frederick and . Elizab)tb are members figured m a Court case recently at Havelock, m which an oil. launch - played a prominent 1 part, but which had to take second ior third place to a dog and ElizaJ beth are members figured m a Court | muslin, and probably does not care ! what the neighbors say, think, or ! even do. j ' The Court case m , question was I one m which an individual, by name '. .James- Hammond, who lives- at Pei lorus Sound, sued Caroline Pauline • Campbell, of 'Elaine Bay, for the sum lof £25. The statement of claim was jas follows :— Plaintiff claims for i the* recovery of one oil-launch of the lvalue of £25, delivered to defendant on tbe agreement that defendant gives |to plaintiff the sum of £10, and the balance to be waived m consideration that the defendant's daughter ; Fli-abeth Laird wa» , . \ GIVEN TO PLAINTIFF IN MARi s RIAGE, ' which contract the defendant has not fulfilled. - The plaiutif? further claims the sum of £4 for damages for the retention ofthe said oil-launch. Mr McNab appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Atkinson (of Wellington)' represented the defendant. ' . , : ; Now, it looks as if the Campbell- | Laird family is v divided against itI .•■■'- If because Mary Laird was the first ; witness called, and her recollection .was distinctly clear on the point j that when Hammond and her mother jcame to v an arrangement concerning : the boat, Hammond Was to part ; with it for a tenner, and the further : consideration of getting Lizzie's hand. ; There' .. ore no documents signed, and j Mary saw.no palms crossed with sil- | ver or gold. , < When tackled by Mr Atkinson Mary admitted that she had had rows at jhonie, but denieJ that she was manufacturing her story just because of a barney with ma. How it came about, "Truth's" special Pelorus Sound correspondent doesn't state, but Ma was the next witness and she said she was the wife of John Campbell, of Tennyson's Inj Jet, j though she was careful to relate I that the farm was her own property. ;In June of 1907, Hammond came to .toil at her place, and he -"brought a j launch with him, the engine of which he said belonged to Snooks Bros. Anyhow, John was, according to Ma, willing! to part with the whole concern for a fiver. Ma thought It more than a bargain, and said that for a fiver she would be robbing him, whereupon Jack Hammond raised the price to a tenner with a dog (not a daughter) thrown m. The deal was settled on those lines arid the receipt which produced was. FOR £10 -AND A DOG, valued at a quid. Liz was not part of the bargain. The boat' originally: cost £42, and Hammond gave £22 for it. The receipt was made out by her husband, and as Hammond could not read or write he simply put a cross to it. Ma Canip bell volunteered the information to Mr Atkinson that she borrowed the tenner from Clarence JMills. When Hammond made his smudge on the receipt he understood that he was parting ■ with his launch for a tenner and a dog, and the question of j talcing Liz m the bonds of ' matrimony was . not as much as mentioned. Mr Atkinson : Did you tell him Lhe could haye your daughter ? [ Witness :jl Would not give one of my daughters to him. He could not keep a dog, let alone a woman ; some of his dogs wanted crutches. Continuing, witness said that Mary La;ird knew from the first that the girl was not m the transaction. To Mr McNab : Hammond had never asked witness for her daughter. Did not know what Hammond bought with the £10 ;. he went to the Whakatehuri 'store with it— Mr Espie can tell you. Mr McNab : Did you not see any of the goods ? Witness : . I saw some fishing-lines, some belts, sheath knives, braces and Mr McNab : Were there any wom-r en's clothes ? Witness : No. Mr McNab : As a matter of fact, you got back the whole of your £10, and had the boat into the bargain. John Hammond then told of the manner m which he COURTED "BLOOMIN' LIZ." H;e didn't make overtures to sell his launch. It was just the reverse. Mrs Campbell wanted the launch, and said she would give him £10 for it and throw Liz m m the bargain. This offer made Jock cautious. He slept on it and next morning put it to Liza and she expressed her willingness to fulfil her part of the bargain so long .is mother was willing. Tac'-led by Mr Atkinson, Hammond, who i"-n't such a fool as be looks at first sight, declared that he

would not have thought of marriage if Mrs Campbell had not suggested it and he certainly, having then thought Of marriage, would not have sold the boat for £lv unless the "tart" was ,throw.n m. ,He had looked tv Mrs Campbell and Liz to fulfill the other part of the bar-gain, but had been warped to clear out. In fact it appeared to John that having got all they could out of him they shoo'd him off the premises. He, it seems, had only spoken of the marriage once to Liz after the receipt had been, signed. He wasn't certain that things were right, so he told his mother-in-law m prospect that he^iritended seeing a lawyer or soift'ething over the matter, whereupon she observed firmly _ that Lizzie would, have to make an honorable man of him. He had bought what female clothing he thought was ; necessary, though the articles were not specified. The wedding was supposed to have taken place within five months, and he had moreover threatened to sue somebody or other for breach of promise, or^ contract, or something. It was observed that John wis not a very ardent lover, otherwise after having been ordered off the premises he would have returned and. tried_ to carry off his -bride -or .-woo her or win her, somehow. Anyhow, his ardor seemed • to have cooled somewhat by being threatened that if he went there HE WOULD BE SHOT. He was not a - "born iooncy" to have sold sYieh a good boat for only a "tenner." His heart was now "sore and nigh broken because of the cruel way m which the two "lovers" had been torn apart. He did not mention that I.i/. was m the deal to Mrs Campbell's husband, because Ma observed that if he knew he would knock her head off. Fred Laird, |he sam« chap that is charged with Incest, was informed of the deal, and ho laconically observed "That's good." Perhaps to 'the self-same Fred's way of thinking it was. Anyhow, ' JoJh'a Ij-Tammond now considered, not rTaving ,got Liza, that be had been taujrbt a lesson and he would not trust ' Mrs Campbell ' any further than -he could see her. This was all the evidence, ani Mr Atkinson, ih addressing Mr Scott Smith, .S.M-., said that a century and a half ago, when the Maoris roamed the shores of the Pelorus Sooad .m primitive dress— when the methods of obtaining a wife were either to steal her or to buy her— a bargain of the nature indicated m this case was permissible. But the plaintiff's case was such a weak one that he confidsotly asked for a non-suit. He contended that the case was absolutely farcical. The claims-Was for £25, mad« up. probably m the following way — £. To one dog ... 1 To'pne wife> (prospective) 14 To one launch „. ... 10 £25,, So that plaintiff rated the prospective wife at fourteen dogs ; counsel was surprised at such a low estimate. Even if it could have been shown that there was a binding contract between the man and the woman the man ljad no right to- remain passive as he had done. Addison on contracts had' laid it down that it was the man's place to go IN SEARCH OF THE WOMAN. It was perfectly clear that Hammond's property iii the boat had passed, and there was not a particle of evidence on the question .of the waiver referred to m the statement of claim. The receipt given was a written contract which no Court could vary, and was not subject to any condition, for the terms purported to be the terms of the whole deal. Mr MpNab contended that this was not an action for breach of promise of marriage, nor was it an action for specific performance,, as implied by counsellor -defendant;. Any condition which is capable of. performance, and which m itself is not an il- ., legal act, is permissible, notwithstanding counsel's flight into the realms of 150 years ago. He (Mr McNab) would take bim back further than that — to the time of the Israelites, when Laban convenanted wj.th Jacob to serve seven years' for his (Laban's) daughter Rackael ; and at the end of that time the other daughter, Leah, WAS PALMED OFF ON JACOB, who had to serve another seven years , before he got the girl he wanted. When his (counsel's) client went down to Elaine Bay he was "taken m and done for" Just as much as people from the country were taken down hy thimbleriggers and oard.sharpers. Mrs Campbell had been . guilty of fraud right through— she had.-' never intended that the girl should be given m -marriage. / Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs amounting -to £6. What kind of a noble animal the dog was did not transpire. Anyhow, It's pretty rough on Liz that the dog should take her place. Hammond seems, at any rate he says, he has been rooked and robbed. Matters might be more satisfactory had not 'the incest charge cropped up. Things now look anyhow. Certainly the Lairds are a hard lot.