CHASING THE CHURCH

NZ Truth, Issue 873, 19 August 1922, Page 5

CHASING THE CHURCH

COMPLAINING TENANT WANTS CLERICAL CASH

Evans Seeks To Get. Evens On -Orr

"BOGUS BAILIFF" AND CHARLIE CHAPLIN

The good folk of St. Andrew's kirk have had quite enough to discuss lately following the letting of a house of the pastor's, 17 Bolton Street, to one Nellie Evans, she says for the purpose of providing the necessaries that go to complete lodging m the home away from home. The story, wandering away into half a hundred byways till it was chased back into the well-worn ruts of legal procedure by the Judge,, was told m the Supreme Court this week before Mr. Justice Salmond and a jury of the usual number. The counsel were Lawyers Jeflicoe, for the alleged aggrieved Nellie Evans, and Myers and Mazengarb, for Mr. and Mrs. S. Robertson Orr. Lawyer Jellicoe opened, explaining m detail just why the plaintiff had formally sent m an account for £601 DAMAGES and costs to the Orrs for alleged wrongful entry into premises leased to her, and the consequent fact that she wa-s unable to earn a livelihood as a lodginghouse-keeper. Plaintiff had, she said, known the defendant Orrs for some . time, and early m the present year had entered into an agreement to move into- the. place with furnishings and fittings with an- option to buy if she thought fit at the -end of a year. She was to move m first at 80s per week while all the rooms except three or four downstairs were used on Sundays and other odd times with Bible class and other allied interests, the idea being- that she would later pay' £? for all rooms and £l towards the £1900 capital she would need to buy the property if she, did buy. She also spoke of £50 which she had handed J over for the purpose of squaring accounts with a land agent for his trouble m finding a purchaser, one Elsie Goodwill, later persuaded or otherwise prevailed upon to give up her claim to go on with the deal. The boxes and belongings and whatnots were packed and parcelled at her place m Vivian Street by April 3 and she moved away to the Bolton Street house and stocked up as far as her things would go and Bible class furnishings and requirements did not prevent. The defendant had then talked over THE LETTING OP ALL ROOMS, not merely of the three back rooms downstairs, and had arranged paint, paper, and plumbers. . , He had mentioned something about an "easement to be taken off the property," but she did not know what he meant, nor did she worry till she saw workmen as busy as workmen usually are hammering steps and sidepieces iinto a fire escape leading from the church schoolroom next door to her back yard. She wanted to know and was reminded about the "easement." About that time the Bible class furniture was moved out and she moved m, the Rev. Orr advancing her £50 at 7 per cent, without security towards providing something better for the lodgers when they did come. The easement trouble and the alleged attitude taken up by the Orrs led her to go across the road to a solicitor with a view of calling off the idea that she should buy the place, less the "easement," at the £1900 mentioned m the alleged agreement. The Orrs did not like the move &nd, said plaintiff, threatened TO PUT THE BAILIFF IN unless she took the case out of the solicitor's hands. The strip of land where the fire escape came down, they said, was quite useless as land and had been given to the church. However, she called again on her solicitor, and as she was returning she saw the Orrs and a stranger at the door. She went on and they went m and then she was told that the stranger was the "bailiff." That was Saturday, May 27, and the "bailiff" settled down, or was supposed to settle, m the front room for the night- At ten or eleven that night she was handed a letter- giving her notice that the church required the use of the rooms the Bible class had used before. When Sunday morning came along she found that the "bailiff" had hied him hence, leaving by the front window. On Monday night the "bailiff" came again and a new lock was placed on the front door — the lock had been taken off on Saturday night — and others were put on two rooms upstairs. On Tuesday morning THE "BAILIFF" HANDED HER 9 THE KEYS and left again. At nine that morning the Rev Orr and a sergeant of police called and walked m and looked through, arid the next thing that the plaintiff knew was that the sergeant had gone and the passage door was being nailed up to keep her to the rooms at the back of the house. For some reason the front door was taken away as a going " concern and was not returned for eleven days. Notice was formally served upon her by registered post to quit the Bible class rooms, and later,, on her furniture and fixings were shifted out 1 of those rooms. On June 2 she was handed' the keys of the passage door and of a bedroom upstairs. Everything due under the agreement, she said, bad been paid, tendered, or paid into Court. Under cross-examination plaintiff admitted that the defendant had shown her kindnesses m the' past, but she qualified that by saying- that she had doubts as to whether her benefactor had been Mr. Orr or the church. , His Honor asked plaintiff a few, questions about the £50 advanced by Mr. Orr for the purchase of the furniture. "Do you mean to say that you consider he was not doing you a favor?" Plaintiff: Well, I was paying "'interest at 7 .per (cent. Yes; the current bank rate. Did you give any security? — No. And yet you suggest that that was purely a business transaction arid not a personal favor or kindness! All along there had been bursts oC argument as to procedure and warmer passages at arms between counsel as to fair conduct, and on the second morning the learned lawyers and the judge spoke POLITELY BUT WITH MEANING. Mr. Jellicoe had come back to the open door and had mentioned that there had been a fire at the house;, that someone haid set the house on flre. • '■••■' , ' "Was $he house burnt down?" asked his Honor. "Only partly," Mr. Jellicoe answered, and then returned thanks to the gallant fire brigade. "Yes," said Mr. v Myers, "only partly; a clothes basket was found to be on flre." : "Someone went m with a match," continued Mr. Jellicoe, and then asked plaintiff whom ?*><». had seen thereabout at the time. . ■* ■ ■ ■ Mr. Myers: I do take exception AT THIS LINE OF CONDUCT on the part of my learned friend." His Honor saw an interruption coming and' stepped m: "Sit dpwn, Mr. Jellicoe." "Your Honor can see as well as I can that this is done with a deliberate

object," continued Mjjt. Myers. "I submit It is most improper." Mr. Jellicoe: I am doing this with a full sense of my responsibility. His Honor: I hope fco; go on with your case. I don't want to hear anything about arson. The first real high light was Richard Alfred Full brook; now a casual laborer, but one time a warder at , Seacliff. He was "THE BAILIFF," but all the same, he said, he was not and never had been. He described his engagement, as a result of a request of a friend to the Rev. Orr to rind him work, and his introduction as the bailiff on the Saturday night. He had not been called before and since he had not expected that it came as a shock. The witness,' m his best and breeziest manner, tendered another or two to the effect that the defendant Orr had complained that Mrs. Evans had been across the road to a Roman Catholic lawyer, and went on to say that the defendant had explained to him that unless someone was m possession on the night of May 27 the property would pass to Mrs. Evans under the tertns of the agreement, Mr. Jellicoe: Did he say anything about a contract? . * Witness: He told me that he could get £500 more "-m Mrs. Evans was paying. . What instructions did he give you? "He gave me some terrible instructions." Then followed the .instructions, chiefly m regard to sigmals to the Manse, "5.0.5." calls for assistance, and so on, and witness told of tho supper -provided and his "escape • from the place through the front win- v dow at 11.30 p.m. ' Mr. Jellicoe: Were you sent £or on Monday? — Yes. Witness described how fie had seen the floor of the front room "strewn. with locks, and told how a new lock had been placed on the front door and others on the doors of two rooms upstairs. In the morning he handed the keys to Mrs. Evans and left again. He had treated THE WIHOLE THING AS A JOKE, he said, and his idea m going back on the Monday night was ' simply to get the keys and hand them over to Mrs. Evans. Mr. Myers: Why did you want to do that? Witness: Because Mr. Orr was making a convenience of me, calling me the "bailiffV, and I wanted to put one across him/. Are you the man whom Dr. Truby King used to tell the joke about and say: that you were madder than the maddest inmate there? Witness denied responsibility for founding such a joke: Counse] wanted to know why Fullbrook had returned on Monday night if-, he was so glad to "escape" on Saturday 'night. "This man," answered Fullbrook, "puts Charlie Chaplin to shame; I could not help going- back." Right here, he made a mistake, for his Honor pulled him up sharply and suddenly, but Mr. Myers was m no wise annoyed. ."Such remarks," he remarked, "may give the jury, an idea of WHAT SORT OF MAN the witness is." "Possibly," answered his Honor, "as long as . the decoru.-n of the Court is preserved." . Martin. Madsen, Hugh Owen Williams, and Robert Anderson, waterside workers, gave their evidence m determined voices on plaintiff's behalf, Madsen being cross-examined by Mr. Myers as to how he happened to be at Bolton Street on a certain occasion when the waterfront records seemed to show that at the particular moment he was supposed to be busy at so much per , hour loading or unloading goods on the Wanaka, quite a distance from 17 Bolton Street. Mr. Jellicoe called THE WARRANTED GENUINE ' BAILIFF to prove that the defendant had approached him to take possession but had not been successful since there was no writ. "I don't know how much more time you are going to waste," said his Honor. Mr. JelHcoe protested again. "Go on." Another protest. "Go on." "Will your Honor give a ruling?" "Go on." More protests. "I do suggest that you are wasting time. Go on." And the examination did go on. ■ As a preliminary to the calling of witnesses for the defence, Mr. Myers laid his views before the jury and EXPRESSED HIMSELF VERY ; CLEARLY and to the point. The whole question was whether Mrs. Evans had a full tenancy or a tenancy of the three back rooms only on "May 27- The Orrs would say positively ajid, plainly that there was not a full tenancy, though as an act of grace Mrs. Evans had been permitted to place some of her furniture temporarily m /the Bible class rooms. If "there was no such tenancy THEN NO TRESPASS HAD BEEN COMMITTED. Mr. Myers warmed up and plainly enough suggested that Mrs. Evans and Madsen had stated what were af-ter-thougrhts as facts, alleged facts necessary to her case if she was to succeed. Counsel, went further when he dealt with evidence as to a prospective M.P. lodger. That particular statement, he said, was . A FABRICATION, and he dug deeper and remarked upon, the fact that Mrs. Evans had changed her story- since, he said, her present case was 'founded on grounds which differed from those she had laid before her former solicitor and which ha.d been plainly reflected m that soliditor's letters. "To put it frankly," continued Mr. Myers, "one side or the other is lying." Counsel had' a few words to say about the strip of ground about which all the trouble had begun. It was worth little or nothing, he said, as the jury could see for themselves if they went along-, but "this woman thought she saw an opportunity of getting SOMETHING OUT OF SOMEONE although she had been told from the outset that the little corner of larid was to be taken off." Mr. Myers added a few more wonds and made no bones about it. A tirade against Mr. Jellicoe's standing as a solicitor, credited to Mr. Orr, he suggested, was another fabrication, while another witness, m making a statement that Mr. Orr had east reflections upon tha religion of a solicitor not at present • connected with the case, had .been guilty of making A MONSTROUS AND WICKED STATEMENT absolutely without foundation m fact. The lesser luminaries, choir members, Sunday school leaders, the en urch secretary and treasurer, and several Others were called as the first witnesses for the defence, and told what . they knew of the church's requirements m the way of ' temporary

! accommodation, following the church fire, at 17 Bolton Street. There was, no doubt, said the choir members and the Sunday school folk, that the rooms were used by them well after the date sworn to by plaintiff. Another witness, with a knowledge of how watersiders' wages were paid, opined that Madsen was busy on the Wanaka between 8- aim. and 6 p.m., or at any rate till 6.30 p.m. on the day when he was supposed to be , present at Bolton Street, when quite Important conversations were con-: versed. Rather unexpected evidence was given by Alexander Samuel Scott, i treasurer for the church board of managers, when a bundle of. receipts, one of them for £8 rent that had never been paid by the church, was held up before him by Mr. Jellicoe. He could not explain that * "BOGUS RECEIPT" ■• as Lawyer Jellicoe described it, except by opining that the non-payment of the money was a "concession." James Harper, the secretary of the same board, admitted under crossexamination, that the board's method •of giving a month's notice on under 'a month did certainly seem unbusinesslike. A real live M.P. saia that he had never intended going to Bolton Street early m June, as plaintiff had said. Late m June was the date he had talked about, and he had arranged to wire the Orrs, not Mrs. Evans. The defendant, Samuel Robertson Orr, m the witness box, explained m detail what had happened up to Mrs. Evans's moving m, and following that up to the trouble over the fire escapeMrs. Evans knew full well that she was to have the three rooms only while the church required the front rooms, and she knew, he said, quite as well that the valueless scrap of land, handed over by him. to the church, was to come off the property. He . - •-••'■ ■■- •-'■'■ '■ ■•■■ ■'.■"" ■ ;.-.' HAD HELPED HER ;. m various ways over a period of four years and was trying to help her m the. Bolton Street house as he had previously helped her m her Vivian Stpeet house. There could be no misunderstanding, he said, as to which rooms Mrs. Evans was to have for 30s per, and never, at any time was it

suggested that) she should take over the whole place before the end of June, when Parliamentary lodgers were at han d and the 'place- could be expected to pay. Everything went along, well enough till trouble arose over the building of the fire escape, and. when he remarked that plaintiff had known about it all along she had replied that she had not understood. She would listen to no reason, and he left her. The land Was of no practical value and it was absolutely incorrect for her to say that he had told her that he could get £400 for it. She was < ■ ' ■ INSOLENT AND UNREASONABLE arid he decided to give, her notice. Then came her solicitor's letter. Counsel: Wai there any truth m the statement of Fullbrook that you had referred to the religion of her solicitor? — Absolutely none. Witness also flatly contradicted a passage m the evidence of Madsen as to a particular conversation regarding rental. "No such conversation . took place on that. day or any other day, and at the time that particular conversation was said to. have taken place I was not at 17 Bolton Street." Is there any foundation for Fullbrook's statements as to the "5.0.5." signals to the Manse? — No. Was it intended that lie should stay on Saturday night? — No; he left the place with Mrs. Orr and me. ; His Honor: Why did you take him there?- 1 — I thought it was necessary, to have someone there because the position was getting RATHER OMINOUS. I Qia not understand the ciaim made by Mrs. Evans; I had not agreed to sell to her for a year. You are not a business man?— l have come to the conclusion that I am not. ■-•■..■■■■■.: Mr. Jellicoe: I don't know. Why was Fullbrook taken ■ back on Monday night?— After talking it over with my office-bearers I decided to carry out the original, intention to have someone m the place all night. On the 29th did you see anything" happening to the doors? — Yes, two. workmen — one of them was Madsen— were putting a Yale lock on the front door. Prior to that the lock was oft. Next morning-, witness continued, he tried the door but found ii barred, so went to the Wellington bailiff, then to the police station, and returned with a policeman. Entering the house by way of the back rooms he found the front door barred. One or other removed the bar. Witness was then asked about what Mr. Jellicoe had styled the "bogus receipt"— in fact, a bundle of "bogus receipts"— and said that the position was simply that 'those RECEIPTS WERE COPIES of . receipts he had had filed away, sent down m one envelope to the treasurer for the purpose of the annual audit. The particular "bogus receipt" was for £8 which, m the ordinary course, would have, been paid into his bank account. The particular payment was a regular one, and he therefore made out; a receipt, and . filed . it away till he sent down the bundle to the treasurer. He, .did, .not. see a. bank statement and knew nothing whatever o ( f the ,non- payment; , till. it. was brought out' m Court. He thought he had written out a bona-fide receipt for money paid into his account and that was all there was to, \t s Under sharp" cross-examination 'by' Mr. Jellicoe . on the. .third, .day. ,qf, , the . case the defendant maintained that no suggestion had been made to him In regard to reflections he -was supposed to have oast upon the religion of a former solicitor engaged by plaintiff and that the first he had heard of It was when the witness Fullbrook J had given his evidence m Court. r Mr. Jellicoe: Do you swear that? — Yes. . ' . • .-■ ' •."■ '...•. Counsel produced' correspondence fiom the solicitor m question to the effect that since that firm had rib wish that questions of religion should enter into the dispute it would perhaps be advisable if plaintiff • handed her case to another solicitor.

Defendant replied that he had neve* dreamt at the time that the question; would enter into the action and had attached not the slightest importance to the letter. He had very many letters and had OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN the particular, letter when he . was asked the first questions under crossexamination. He now remembered having received that letter, but he attached no .importance, to it at the time and did not answer it. ..'... Mr. Jellicoe expressed surprise and continued his examination on points m correspondence, evidence m chief, and chuirch' boa*rd minutes, and then turned to the "selling" of the disputed piece of land to the church. "There was never any intention to sell," replied witness. "The land was worthless- Nominally, I sold it to the church for 10s; actually, I never received 10s, and never expected to receive it. The land was a gift." The question of whether, or not plaintiff knew that' the land was to come off was thrashed out again, witness maintaining that Mrs. Evans had known from the first what the position was. Mr. Jelliooe: Why was the first purchaser willing to cancel her contract to buy? — She expressed regret that she had agreed to buy as she was going, to Sydney. . • Some more questions, many of them, very many, followed, as to the disputed patch of land, and at last his Honor remarked: "Mr. Jellicoe, you have been but m the back yard all the morning. Is there any chance of you going into the house soon?" Mr. Jellicoe: Why, m an Insurance policy, did you state that Mrs. Evans was the tenant of the property? — She was the occupier, the church authorities did not live m the house, though it made use of the rooms on some days.' . -. ••■••.:-: I. was • looking forward to the time when . phe would be the tenant of -the whole -house.' and ..not merely the tenant of- the three back rooms." • . . (Proceeding 1 .) '