GIFT OR LOAN?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22612, 2 July 1935, Page 7

GIFT OR LOAN?

£3OO AT STAKE THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION A claim for a total of £3OO, being money lent and interest thereon, was entered by Wilhelmina Moir against Catherine Wallace at a sitting of the Magistrate's Court before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., yesterday morning. Mr C. J., L. White appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Mr B. S. Irwin. The statement of claim declared that the sum was made up of £2OO, money lent to the defendant in October, 1929; £6, interest thereon from July 1, 1934, to January 1, 1935, at 6 per cent.; a further j£l2o, money lent in February, 1932; £ll 4s 6d interest thereon from February 18, 1932, to March 8, 1935, at 4$ per pent.; less the amount abandoned in excess of £3OO to bring the amount within the jurisdiction of the court. Details of the transactions between the defendant and herself were given by the plaintiff, who denied that she had ever made gifts of money to the defendant or anyone else. She had lent Mrs Wallace £2OO to enable her to purchase a business, a receipt for the amount being kept by Mrs Wallace. She had paid interest on the amount to the plaintiff until October of last year. The other £l2O was placed in the Dunedin Savings Bank to Mrs Wallace’s credit at the same time as the plaintiff paid £2OO into her own account, as the latter was the maximum amount the plaintiff could pay into her account. Evidence was also given by Isabella O’Connell, who said that Mrs Wallace had told her that she would give Mrs. Moir her money when her sons were working. Mr Irwin said that there had never been any dispute regarding receipt of the money. The plaintiff was possessed of considerable wealth, and was very friendly with the Wallaces. As the result of strong urging by Mrs Moir Mrs Wallace bought a business, the sum of £2OO being given to her for the purpose by Mrs Moir. Later Mrs Moir made a voluntary gift of £IOO to Mrs Wallace. No interest on either amount was ever paid by Mrs Wallace, as Mrs Moir had told her that the money was a gift. The defendant also denied that she had made out a receipt for the £2OO, Now the plaintiff wanted the money back. Evidence in support of Mr Irwin’s statement was given by the defendant, Jessie Edith Elsie Hunt, and Gretta Crawford. The magistrate said that there had been some very hard swearing by the parties, particularly with regard to the matter of interest payments. A One or other of the parties had sworn false evidence, The question at. issue was whether the money concerned was a loan or a gift, and in deciding this question it was necessary to consider the relationships between the parties and their respective positions. The defendant’s husband was the plaintiff’s nephew, but it did not appear that the plaintiff was under any obligation to cither the defendant or her husband. It required very cogent evidence on the part of the defendant to prove that the money was a gift and not a loan. The plaintiff claimed distinctly that it was a loan and not a gift. She gave' particulars with regard to the rate of interest paid arid he could not see that the defendant’s allegation that it was a gift could be sustained. With reference to ■ the sum of £l2O, the account given by the plaintiff concerning the circumstances in which it was paid into the defendant’s bank account was more credible than that advanced by the defendant. ! Judgment would be given for the plaintiff for the full amount, £3OO, with costs (£3 13s) and solicitor’s expenses (£l6).