SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10420, 24 July 1895, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Toksdat, July 23.

(Before his Honor Mr: Justice' Williams.) BROWN V. HOOD AND ANOTHER.

Claim by the trustees uf-the will of Thomas Brown (deceased) for the custody of his child The Hon. W. Downie Stewart, wiih Mr J. F. Woodhouso, appeared for the plaintift, William Brown, ~f DuuedU, accountant; and Mr W. C. MacGregor for the defendant, Klizabeth Oaten Hoon, of S<uhli Dunedin, wife of William Hood, formerly of Dunedin, now of New South Wales, upholsterer. There was no appearance on behalf ot the nominal defendant Alexander Johmton (jvae Blown, of Dunedin, accountant. lhe statement of claim (filed on April-27 last) set forth ttat Thomas Brown, of Catlins and Dunedin, gentleman, by his last will and testament, bearing date the 3lst December-1889, appointed his wife (the defendant, Elizabeth Oaten Hood) the trustee of his will and guardiau of his infant child; by the.will the said Thomas Brown appointed William Brown the sole trustee and executor of his will and guardian of his" iufant child; that the said Thomas Bi own had issue of his manuge with the defendant Elizabeth Oaten Hood one child, named Elizabeth Brown, who is now about five years of age ; thatthe said Thomas Brown tiied at Catlins on the Sth May 1893, and that probate of his will was granted on or about the 2,Jrd June 1893; that the value of the estate to be administered under the will, and to which the said infant Elizabeth Brown is contingently entitled thereunder, is from £1.2,008 to £15,(100, and by the will vower is given to the trustees to apply the- whele or part of the income of the estate towards the maintenance, education, and upbringing of the said infant -Elizabeth Brown ; that on the 15th June.lSiW the defendant Alexander Johnston Cree Brown was appointed by tho Supreme Court a trustee under the will Jointly witb the plaintiff; that the defendaut Elizabeth Oaten Hood on the Ist November 1891 briciinie a bankrupt, and hs* not yet obtained her discharge, or been otherwise released from, her liabilities; that the plaintiff and his co-trustee from time to time paid to the defendant, Elizabeth Oaten Hoed, various sums bf money for ths maintenance of the infant, Elizabeth Brown ; tint tbe defendant, Klzabeth Oaten Hood, ha? on several occasions misapplied part of the moneys so paid to her, ahd, particularly about October 1893, ahe obtained £50 to bn used in paying the expenses of removing herself and her daughter from Dunedin to Mscandrew Bay, and in paying certain household debts, but instead of so applying the money she went to Melbourne-with her daughter and some other of her children; that the plaintiff is the only brother of the said Thonias Brown, deceased; that the defendant, MizVoeth Oatsn'Hood, at the time she married the said Thomas Brown was a widow having five children, who are still alive ; that on the Sth April 1895 the defendant, Elizabeth Oaten Hcod, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiif or his cotrustee, married one William Hood, of Duuedin, upholsterer, a widower, who has six or seven children alive, most « them under 21 years of age; that the said William Hood, after his marriage with ibe defendant, Eliz-beth Oaten Hood, left New Zealand for lNew South Wales, where he is now residing, and ho was at the date of his marriage and still is in poor circumstances ; that the defendant, Elizabeth Oaten Hood, is at present re<,iding in South Dunedm with the children of her' first marriage, hear daughter by the said Thomas Brown, and the children of William Hood, and she intends io leiveforNew South Wales and to take with her hor said daughter Klixabfith Brown and the other children; that the defeudant, Jliizsbrth Oaten Hood, has no property or income apart from what she his i^en receiving on bdw'lf of the said infant. Elizabeth Brown, forhermaintenance and uponr.giug, and she has been incurringdebts and at present owes money which she is unable to pay; thai the plaintiff i, desirous that, if not already guaul.an of the person and estate of the said infant fUizabeth Brown, he should be «W nte* H^{te£ that he and the defendant, Alexander Johnston Cree Brown, should be appointed S^diaus or that some other lit and proper r-cr>on should be appointed sole guardian of the person and estate of the sa dSK Bixabith Brown; and that tue defendant TiT.s-ibeth Oaten Hoed, and all other infant, onto! the Jims its consent or of the BUiKll„ 7. } +i, P infitu fttrinient.l to the interes s o^the^id mUnt Elizabeth Brown, weie sue r jurisdiction of the court ox a fi..4^ iHrfh Oaten Hood. Wherefore tha feu..ant, KluahcchM^ he declared that the plaintiff prayed tbat it:niien defendant, Blusabeth «^ ud e^e of thesaj< i be guardian of tho »«^ * r that she shouW be infant Elizal^th Brown d , removed f™m t'lePy declared to be guardian that Uie plamtifi "'« ff d the defondatlt or that the pl^tiir Alexander J°hnVt°n declared to be ; tecs under the win, . j ntiff or some other }it , guardians, or tb»tin»i app ointed sole guardian | and proper Pel]*°" °&c of the said infant; that | of the person and gta^ the defendant, vi* Xnin^ by tbe injunction other persons may" c<lUTt f rora removing tbe '■ oT. oJ d. eluiA(.r,m the jurisdiction of the court ssid infant norn """ ■>

without the permission of the court; that the defendant, EUztbtth Oaten Hood, should be ordered to deliver such infant into the custody of the guardian who may be appointed, or to such other person as the court may diiect.

In the statement of defence (filed on Bth May last) the defendant, Klizidieih Oaten Hood, admitted many parts of thu staten.ent of claim. She stated that she did not know the present value of the estate, aud therefore denied its value set out in the statemsnt of claim ; that she b«eame bankrupt in November last, but has since been released from her debts; that sh* has not at any time misapplied any part of the moneys paid to hor forthe maintenauce and upbringing of the infant Elizabeth Brown ; that she admits that she marrie.'! oue William Hood on or about the Sth April 1895, and the said William Hood then and still has five children under the age of 21 years ; that after tha marriage the said William Hood proceeded to Sydney, but he was not at the time of the mariiaqe, nor is he now, in poor circumstances; that she has intended for some months past (as the pUiatilf well knew) to prvcetd to New South Wales, but she has delayed her departure to await the order of lhe court; that it would be for the benefit and advantage of the infant, Elizabeth Brown, to leave New Zealand and proceed to New South Wales ; that it would not be rfetriinental to the interests and welfare of the. said infant were she removed to Nevt South Wales and allowed to remain uuder the control and in the custody of the defendant, but on the contrary would be for her advantage and benefit.

Mr Stewart said the two points on which the plaintiff relied were Mrs Hood's bankruptcy and her second marriage, which were admitted by the defence. Counsel mentioned several cases, and contended that under them the defendant was disentitled to continue as guardUn unless she could satisfy the court that ehe should continue to be Kuardi.iii..' ' . . ■ Mr MacGregor said the piaiutiff aekad for more than that Mrs Hood should be discontinued as guardiau; they wished M.r Brown appointed in her place. His Honor said that was so. Mr Stewart relied on the bankruptcy, the marriage, and the threat to take the child away, and he proposed td call certain evidence as to Mrs Hood and her husband to show their unfitness to be continued as guardians of the child apart from those facts. , As to the future guardian, there were other parties—for instance, Or Dunlop. the Rev. R. R. M Sutherland, and Mr John Gibson, of Ashley Downs —who were prepared to act as guardian. Mr MacGregor: Auybody but Mr 3 Hood. . Mr Stewart said that although Mr Brown's name was-mentioned in the ca?e, there were other parties suitable to take the custody of the child.

Evidence was then called in support of the plaintiff's case. Thomas Lack, signwriter, Stuart street, Dunedin, said that he knew Mr flood. Hehadknown him for 15 or 16 years. Mr Hood ha 1 four boys and two girls. Witness was aware of his religious convictions. He thought that he believed in a Deity. Witness could not recollect if he ever had a conversation with him relating to the marriage laws. As to his finances, wituess knew that his brother-in-law lent him money some two years ago, and it was all repaid. He was ah upholsterer by trade. To his Honor : Witness always found him to be a pood neighbour.

By Mr MacGregor: Mr Hood used to attend the meetings of a society presided over by the Rev. Mr Saunders, which met on Sunday afternoons in the Congregational Church. He was always highly resnecied. Ooe of his children sang in St. Paul's choir, and the younger children ..attended the Congregational Church Sunday School. From what Mr Hood had told .him he knew that he had hada lor. of trouble with his first wife, but. notwithstanding that he brought up his family respectably. Mr Brown's detective (Detective Bun) called on witness about the case.

"William John Burk, Venetian blindmaker, Stuart -treet, said that he had -known Mr Hood for about 16 years.' He was. a neighbour of his about 12 months ago. In regard to his religious convictions, witness did not think he believed in the Biole altogether, but he had never discussed the marriage laws with him. By Mr MacGregor: He was a. hard-working, steady man. Witness could never recol-'ect of his taxing spirituous, liquors, although he had been in his company at socials.

Adolph F W Lorie, auctioneer, Dunedin, said that Mr Hood was iu-liis employment" for one or two ye»rs. He was foreman of the factory, and had charge of the, furniture department. , He was paid 50* a week and commission, but never earned morn thau that, as the commission was contingent on the stock being correct, and Mr Hood left at stock-taking. The stock was in a hopeless muddle. He left on the Tuesday after the 31st March last, his own statement being that he was too drunk to be of any use to the firm. Hisstock was to have been ' taken on the Friday previous, and the balance closed on Saturday night. He had practically nothing ready. He was there on Saturday niorniuj;, and his condition was silly and useless, and got'worse as the day went on. He left very late un Saturday night. On Monday he , was again apparently under the influence of liquor, and oh Tuesday he left, persisting in the statement that he was too drunk to be of service Wheu witness first took him on it was represented that he was iv poor circumstances. By Mr M&cGregor: It was not common for witness's employees to be promised a liberal commission anri for witness to quarrel with tbem and dismiss them before they earned it. Witness did n;;t ask Mr Hood to come into the situation more than once. He offered him the position, and he jumped at it. He was not a good foreman of the factory. He was the worst mau they ever had. He msde a v>ry good furniture salesman. He was of good address, possessing a very nice plausible manner all through. He s»id he was overworked. He did less work than anyone else He was not tliere night after night till 12 o'clock. He told witness some months ago that he wanted to leave. Witness did not ovnrworkhis nipn, and he did not know that he wa»s known as the "Slave driver." If any of the'men'*worked overtime they were paid. Mr Hood might hive come back three or four nights at- stock-takiug. ~ He might have come back at the time bf the agricultural sliow, but he failed them very much, and the firm had to employ other men to do his work. Wit-

ness never instructed hiiu to go to a low house and seiza some furniture. .Witness never knew him to be drunk prior to the occasion ■ mentioned. He was not staggering, but talked nonsense. He, never complaii.ed on the Saturday of being overworked Oe previous stocktakings it might .he that Mr Hood had only to take the factory stock, but in thi* instance he had two srock-cakiuss—viz , that of the factory ahd furniture. He however had plenty of time and ample assistance. It was not a fact that in his establishment little time was allowed. In taking stuck witness found a number of discrepancies. William Siverfcsen, bootmaker, Moray, place, said he was a neighbour of Mr Hood's for some time. Wituess often had talks with him, chiefly on politics, but they had never discussed the marriage law*. Mr Hood professed no relisious creed. The family were brought up like any other family. The eldest daughter looked after them. .By Mr MacGregor : As far as witness was aware, Mr Hood was a .quiet, steady man. Witness had never seen him the worse of liquor., In the fcocietj that met ia the Congregational Cburch Mr Hood used to speak strongly against the use of drink, William Cowan M'Nee, land agent, knew Mrs Hood. Eight months ago.; he had a transaction with her about a house. . She agreed with a Mr Donaldson, through witness, to nurehasa a house on ths Main road to the Ocean Beach for £280,. payable in eight months. (Agreement produced.) She took pussessiou, and a small part o.f: the money had been paid; but Mra Hood told him two months ago that she could not carry out the agreement. By Mr MacGregor: Mrs Leith (Mrs Hood's inothor) now occupied the house and paid the rent.. . George William Geddes said he first met Mrs Hood about IS years ago. Sbe wa« then Miss Wilson, and was engaged as a ballet fjirl in Mr Eoskins's company. She lived in witness's house for a while. Mr Stewart: Just state what you know as to what took place in reference to a watch. Witness said he would not like to ttate what he knew; he might get into trouble himself. ilr MacGregor a«ked whafc this had to do with the case, i'he watch was not mentioned in the statement of claim. His Houor did not think it was worth while going back into any matter which occurred 18 years sgo, and Mr Stewart said he would not press the matter. Robert Collier, boot xalesauau, said ha told boots to Mrs Hood lately, and had a little difficulty to-get the money for them; this was in Hay last. Witness put the matter into a bailiffs hands. By Mr MacGregor : The amount involved was 14^. Mrs Hood paid witness as soon as the bailiff went to her place. Witness hud known Mr Hood for two or tnree years, and had never seen him the wors« of drink. George i'iudfay,' timber merchant, knew Mrs Hood. She ordered timber from him eight years ago, saying she had a section on the Flat where she wanted to build, and that she was expecting money from Home on account of her husband (Mr Barker). Witness afterwards found that the sectiou wss not hers. Tbe timber was not paid for, but part of it (£2O) was paid sifter she married Mr Brown. I'he total amount was about £30.

-By Mr MacGregor: It was not the cose that the linn were limited to £20, and that they sent out £3U or £40 worth. The section belonged to ODe Mm Dunning. Sarah Dunning, wife of J. J. Dunning, of Sonth Dunedin, said that some years ago .Mrs Hood (then Mrs Barker) got some money from hor on account of some trouble she said she had with hor husband. Witness conld'not say what the amount was. The mouey had not bten repaid, but witness's father (Mr Sutclift) got some timbar in place of it. She believed the timber came fiom Pindlay's. By Mr MacGregor: Detective Bain was twice out at witness's place about this matter. The money was loaned for three months. If Mrs Hood said the loan was £15 witness would not contradict her. Michael Phelan, bailiff, said he had twice gone to Mrs Brown's house to distrain for rent. T'be first occasion was in December last, when £4 7 s was owing, and he was iv possession for five or six hours. Mrs Brown paid the money. On tbe 23rd of April witness was again in possession of Mrs Brown's house for some hours, the amount owing being £2 3s Bd. It was paid. In April last witness was employed by Mr Collier to collect money from Mrs Brown. When witness was last in the house there were 12 or 13 children in it, including a, couple of young lade* By Mr MacGresor: All in the house anpea-ed comfortable, happy, and well looked after Tbpv were a very united family; Mrs Brown tild wit ness that it was owing to a misunderstand;™ with the landlady that the last distress w as 'uf into the house, and in the case of the first- di7tS,„ she said that she conld not pay the «*? S3 William Brown and Co. bad ?,ot pafd h«\S allowance, Mr Brown being down at Catlins William Brown, accountant, said he wm -ii plaintiff. He first became acouaintnd TiJu-Sr Hood in 18S9, after she bad ™W w»h M™ brother. After his brother^ death »it« nBESS executor uuder the will. Mw H o X tei£", WM annuity of <£2UO under the marria^w "f a»d allowed £100 under the will fn twT efitZ of the child. This arran E ement comim^f erCSt year, and after that -May )^l_ ' ?„ Ued :or a appealed to by Mr, Hood's solicit™?,, eSS T as detts, which amounted to S r,l r, a f b, et crisis was brought about by tßgjffyJh J

her brother—a timber morc.hant named Cbarle Leith; and in his bankruptcy bids to the extent of £3;!t were found endorsed by Sirs Brown. Apm-w from these debts her owu private debts amounted to £25 ■>.. Witness advauced the money, taking up the bills on which .she was liable. He held as a security an insurance policy on her life. Tbere were two special advances of £50 during the year, the money to be-repaid by deductions from her monthly allowance. The first advance was provided in order that sho might go to Macandrew Bay, but shortly aftenvards the went to Melbourne. Witness heard from hsr next by telegram, requesting funds to bring her back. She scut a wire, "See bank at once; forward £30" The reply was there were no funds in hand. The second advance of £50 was paid becauie she represented that she over-ran her allowance, and wa* " squeezed "for d^bts, Thus over £1500 had been advanced within the first; 12 months after Mr Biown's death. Her annuity being mortgaged ce«?ed, and witness voluntarily increased her child's allowance to £3 a week. She expressed her satisfaction with the arrangement ni;-.re thau once, stating that she was getting on well and'paying cash for everything. She was in difficulties again four months afterwards. Mr Fraser came to him again to get mohey to pay her debts The latter amounted to about £300.: Witnew declined to assist again, and she filed in bankruptcy. Witness had warned her about gel ting into debt, but she always replied that she was paying cash for everything. The official assiguee advertised for tenders for her assets, and witness offered £32 lth, which was accepted. The creditors got a dividend of 2s 3d in the pound, and up <o the present she had not got her discharge. She was married on the Sth of April, and witness became aware of the lact on the 25th April. A creditor called.in aud asked if he would pay an account of hers,-which was not an uncommon occurrence, and mentioned her marriage. Witness was very much surptised. He had not spoken to ber since, except en-one occasion, when she called and asked«wiue«s's consent to sell the furniture in order that she might go to Sydney, her reason for going there being that her daughter Amy was iii and she should go to Australia. She did not then mention her marriage.' Witness had heard it stated that Mrs Hood was down at Catlins with him. He asked if she hid been to Catlins lately, and Ehe replied yes. He asked her if she had ahy reason to connect her n»ine with his in regard to the visit.. She appeared nonplusssd at being detected, and merely said she did not wish her business to be known. He a-ked her if it would not be better to acquit c a character for truthfulness. .That was all tliat passed, except that he did not give her his consent to sell the furniture. Some time ago; when her creditors pressed her, witness consented with, great reluctance to advahce the money to enable her to pay 21)3 in the Eound, and when the bailiff was put into her ouse in December witness paid the money to get him out. The present proceedings were takeu in the interest of the child ;it was a matter of doty, he considered, to his brother's child. Witness did not think Mrs Hood had a.penny outside what she got from him. If the* child were left with Mrs Hood it would not be properly brought up. People had repeatedly called at witness's office asking him to pay her debts. As to a guardian, Hr Dunlnp, the Rev. Mr Sutherland, and Mr Gibson, of Ashley Downs, were willing to act; they were all men.of Very high character. On the 1 Sth of April Mrs Hood told witness of her intended removal to Sydney, butshenevermentioned to him her, marriage. Witness had regularly paid to her the 'moneys due to her. Mrs Hood was not reliable in her statements. She had on more than one occasion'told him she was paying cash for everything and not getting into debt. It would not be in the interest of. the child to remain -with Mrs Hood. Being-with other children, the girl would receive only part of the money allowed for her maintenance. By Mr MacGregor: The income from the late Mr Brown's estate was nominally about £500 yearly. The estate was .worth £13,000 or £14,000. Several portions of it were unremunemtive at present Witness had the genera] supervision of the estate, but so far bad received no payment for his services. The will provided that in the event of the' death of the infant Elizabeth Brown the whole of the estate reverted to wituess and his sister. Witness did hot think Mrs Hood's influence on the, child would be good. He thought Mrs Hood did not properly manage the child. Wherea child's, mother made misstatements it was not good for the child's morals. Witness did not belong to the Plymouth Brethren. He belonged to - the body who met in the Choral Hall. His brother was a Presbyterian. The Plymouth Brethren held views which the body with which witness: was connected did not hold. Witness did not'hear that the infant Elizabeth had a Serious illuess some time ago. Witness did not wish to know how Mrs Hood, spent the money allowed to her. He would not be surprised to hear she had been. keeping her aged father and mother, but he did not think that was chargeable to the estate.; Witness knew that one creditor (Mr Carter, draper) was very sore about witness buying Mrs Brown's estate, but witness-had no sympathy with Mr Carter, having warned him respecting Mrs Brown. At.the time of the oeath of Mr Thomas Brown, witness paid Mr Carter £250 to clear Mrs Brown's drapery bilL Witness bought Mrs Brown's estate for the benefit of Thomas Brown's estate. He had. no intention of giving it'back to Mrs Hood. Witness was the only tenderer for the estate. He did not tell Mrs Hood that he had bought the estate for her. "When Mr.-Brown spoke of going to Sydney she did not say her health: wa3 bad here in the winter time. She had previously discussed with witness about leaving Dunedin, as Bhe wanted to get away from her relatives here, who were a "drag" on her, but she did not say she wanted to leave the colony; witness understood she wished to go either to the country or to another part of the colony. Witness had employed an agent (Detective Bain) tv make inquiries, and he himself had inquired into some matters and had questioned one of the servants who used to be in Mrs Brown's employ. J. F.M. Eraser, solicitor, said he ha*d for some years acted fur the late Thomas Brown and for Mrs Hood. He had also acted for Mrs Hood whon she wars Mrs Barker andwhen she was Mrs Brow N n.. Wibness spoke of a. number of deeos he ha<l prepared. He had read them over to Mrs Brown, and she had perused them herself. Legal j-.rgon and phraseology nobody could understand, but he would be surprised if Mrs Brown was not conscious of the effect of those deeds. By Mr MacGregor: Witness did not know that Mrs Hood had bveu imposed upon, but,<be knew that she had given. £800 in one case without any consideration. Some of her ifriends. had " sponj-ed "on her. The infant Elizabeth Brown appeared to be well looked after/by Mrs Ho->d. Charles Chri-tie Graham, official assignee, gave evidence relating to Mrs Hood's bankruptcy last year. In ISSB MS Hood/'(then Mrs Barker) was also bankrupt. Mrs Hp6d had not received her order of discharge under her last' bankruptcy. • , MrStewart intimated that this was all the evidence he* would tender in the meantime. Mr MacGregor proceeded at once to call witnesses.. .-...■ The Rev.. I. Jolly, of the South Dunedin Presbyterian Church, had known Mrs Hood for over a year, when she came to reside iv South Danedin, near his church. All the children went to the church and also to the Sabbath school regularly. Witness had called at the house several times, and all the children, including Bessie, appeared to be happy and comfortable. As/far as witness could tee, Mrs Hood treated them as a mother should do. /By, Mr Stewart-: Wituess had not called since •the marriage ;he had not happened to be at the house since that event. He was not an expert in the bringing up of children ;he Was a hachelor. In Glasgow, where he was a missionary, he had gone about many homes, and he knew something about, them.. Bessie was a bright young child, ana often noticed her in the Sabbath school. .-. . ».-.-.-. _The Rev. William Saunders, minister of the Congregational Church, Moray place, said there was aMeu's Institute held in connection with the churca on Sunday afternoons. Witness always attended it. He knew Mr Hood, who wa3 a member of the, society, having been among the earliest who joined. Mr Hood was a regular attender, ana almost every Sunday took part in the debates and discussions. At the meeting of the society last Sunday Mr Hood attended after his absence m Sydney, and his reappearance was marked by the applause of those present, which showed that he was held in high estejm. WitBesstawMr Hood was broad iv his views, but-he had not heard him enunciate any views that would lead him to think they would harm his character. He had always understood Mr Jrlood, to be opposed to the liquor traffic. He had no personal knowledge of Mr Hand's habits. q Lw? d*"i not know if the children went to the fcabbath school; he was in the institute, and therefore did uot go to the school. .By Mr htewart: The society existed largely to examine social questions in the light of Christian truth Anyone could join the society. It was not a bociali>.tic organisation; in fact,- there was co organisation. 3ttr Hood was not officially connected m any way with the church. Witness would not call Mr Hood an Agnostic. He should call h>m a Neelectic; he always spoke of Jesus Umst as supreme, and was willing to "submit w-n-t0 t? c Stance of the Master, w imam Hood, an upholsterer, said he hsd been 22 years in 2\ T ew Zealand. He had been 13 years ™ Uunedm. He had a place of business in Stuart street, but had left that to manage Mr Lories factory. He authorised no one to solicit the billet forJiiui. He went to Mr Lorie at his request. He offered him the billet, and asked tiim what wageß he wou3d require. He.told him he would come for £3 a week for a start. He said no such wages were paid in tbe tr.ide, and finally agreed to give him £2 10s, with commission. The commission he never got Twelve months aner he started he was placed in charge of the furniture department. There was no increase of salary, out he was to get a bigger bonus, which lie old not get. Even some wngeswere owing yet. Mr Lone expressed his satisfaction with witness s work in both capacities. He was in the furniture department for about six months. The hrsv suggestion of his leaving was about tbe tune of the agricultural show at the end of November Mr Lorie ordered some furniture to be sent to tho show, but as the time was not sufficient to get n, all there Mr Lorie kicked up * row. Witness gave a week's notice thst he would leave, but as no other man was got" witness stayed on until stock - taking, m order to show that he could make the thing a success. Mr Lorie was more civil to him afterrhat, but he seldom spoke to him. When stock-takmrcame abouthe was toldtogetit allontheslicets on Friday night, which was done. He left the place at a quarter past 12 o'clock that night He had no drink that night. He had been working at night Whenever required all the year round. He did not get paid for tbat, as the bonus was supposed to cove* it all. The hard work considerably injured bis health, but he had to struggle on till stocktaking. On Saturday morning he turned up at 8 o'clock. He was sober, having had no dnnk that morning or the previous day. In the afternoon witness, togetkei-with Mr Lone and a lady assistant, checked the stock from 2 o clock in the afternoon till 9 o'clock at night, working continuouX After that they extended the sheets ink the stock book, which occupied till uudnight His assistant made the entries in the book. Mr Lorie »aw witness, at work. He was the«! till 9 o'clock. What Mr Lone said ss to witness being unfit to give any assistance ihrough &g taken too much drink «aa .v.'.ij,. untrue. Mr Lone said nothing wte£b! to& that he thought witness wal He had bad a glass of gin at lunch time. Th,.t was *11 the drink he hsd on Saturday. On Mnndav witness wns in attendance again. He Wl had one glass of whir-ky at lunch time and one r&a' i of ta* at bedtime It was absolutely Vntrtte thot he ivm under the in(luc-nce of drink. He was there on Tuetday. He was suffering from

■■ ™ i»"iii'iim mm 111 II I mini ninwjm palpitation of the heart, and determined to go home. He told Mr Lorie he was ill—that he had broken down — and he adviped witness to take a week iv the country and come back ajuain. He told Mr Lcrie that he did not iatend to coma back—that he was leaving him for good. When he went home he took a g'a*s of spirits, aa it relieved the palpitation. He took spirits to relieve palpitation ou the advice of a friend, 3nd it gave him relief Prior to the 27th March last, when he took a glass of spirits, he had touched no spirituous liquors for three yeara. Mr Lories evidence that witness said he was too drunk to be of use to him he did not think was true. He had been suffering from palpitation all Tuesday morning. He went home and had lunch, and as he did not feel well he went to bed. bhortly after, Mr M'Donald called, and stayed about an hour. He had had no drink on the way horns. Witness went over to Sydney on Easter Tuesday. When he left for Sydney he had about £180, while his house was decently furnished. He had an invitation to start work with Hordern Bros., Pitt street, Sidney. Whei he got there he did not start work, as he was ill and confined to the house for three weeks. He was under medical care, and took no spirits. When he got better he made application to William Ryley and, Co., where he got work, and stayed there till he left Sydney. His earnings averaged 50s, which in Sydney was worth £3 10j in Dunediu, for living was just about one half of what it was in Dunedin. He expected his wife and family, and prepared a home for them, but got a cablegram notifying these proceedings . 'lhe eldest girl of witness's family was over ,20. and the youngest going on foi 11. He believed Mr Lorie was of Jewish extraction, but he* (Mr Lorie) denied it frequently. Witness frequently went to church. He attended Protestant churches wherever there was a good preacher. His children regularly attended Simday school. His daughter was a member of St Paul's choir. He had taught sune of his children music—theoretical and practical. By Mr Stewart: He had known his wife for four or five months before he married her. They were engaged for a'couple of months. He met her first at Lories. The marriage, so -far a-> he knew, wss not to be a secret one. It took place at 10 o'clock in the morning before the registrar His daughter and Mr Macdonald were the witnesses. He had no expectations whatever of getting anything from the estate through Mrs Hood. One of the principal grounds why he would not have married her was because she was encumbered with the estate. His conduct on Saturday at stock time might have given rise tof.the idea coni ceived hy Lorie that he was silly and stupid. 'He worked too hard and was "done." Lorie had imposed .too much work on him • and ■ he was " done." He did not like the eituai tion at all, as he could never trust Mr • Lorie. VeT often there was no accountant at the ; office, and frequently he had to put the change in i; his pocket till the accountant arrived. Mr Lorie , was quite capable of turning round and charging i him with* pocketing tbe money. He could not ; trust him, and did not like the billet. Hedidnot I acknowledge any belief or creed, but to a certain ; extent he believed in the inspiration of the Bible, 5 and he believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ,'. i Witness considered marriage simply as a civii , contract. He never advocated the opinion that ) men and women should live together just so long . as it pleased them, although he believed in liberal - divorce laws such as obtained in Australia. - '

Simon M'Donald, wood carver, said his place of business was in Moray place. He had known Mr Hood 12 or 14 years. He bad gone to the Moray place Institute at Mr Hood's invitation. He had been in his hou^e hundreds of times. The children were well brought up. Mr Hood" was never addicted to drink. He seemed to hold opposite views. It was on witness's suggestion that he tasted anything, as he seemed to be overworked. He was always working late at Lories . , He had often told witness that he was overworked there aud he was told the same thing by others. On the Tuesday: he heard that he was "not at work, and witness called at his house He was in bed^ and spoke quite reasonably. Some days previously he complained of his nerves, and witness suggested that he should take something as he appeared to be breaking down through overwork. He knew he worked at night, for he often wentjto Lories at 10 o'clock to meet him. Witness was'indined to temperance personaUy, but he sometimes took a glass himself if he thought he needed it. Mr Hood was greatly respected at the institute. By Mr Stewart: The institute was laid down on liberal lines. •

James John Marlow, cabinetmaker, also gave evidence. „ A '' ' The court then rose.