Friday, 26th Januaby,

Otago Witness, Issue 1314, 3 February 1877, Page 8

Friday, 26th Januaby,

The examination of witnesses for the defence was continued as follows :—: — James Stenhouse, overseer on the Ocean Beach Railway, stated: I have known the plaintiff for 17 years, and I know Ross and plaintiffs children by his second wife. I had some conversation with plaintiff since marriage concerning the disposition of his property. One conversation occurred in 1869 or 1870. Robertson told me he was going to leave his propeity to Mrs Ross and Mrs Miller. Whenever I met Robertson he was talking about this matter. Sometime after that he told me he had made it all right for Jeaniiie and Annie. I have known from Robertson for 16 years that he was going to leave all his property to those two daughters. I always thought Robertson was a maa who knew what he was about. In another conversation Robertson told me he had made it all right for Jeannie and Ross, and I said I hoped he had made all right for Joannie, as she had been a good daughter to him. Cross-examined : The conversation in which Robertson said he had made it all right for Jeannie occurred about the end of 1869.

John Leekie M'Gregor stated : lam a farmer on the Peninsula. I have known Robertson for the last 16 years. I have frequently had cinversations with Robertson about his property. In October, 1866, 1 had a conversation with Robertson about his property. Some friends of mine, who had been lucky on the West Coast, came back to Dunedin, and they wanted to buy some land, and they also wanted to get wives. I spoke to Robertson about getting land for them, and he suggested that I should set them on to his daughters. He said — " Could you not introduce one (naming him) to Jeannie ?" I said—" He is too old for Jeannie." He replied — " Tne older he is, the more sense he will have to take care of her." Robertson also said that, whoever got Jeannie, would be well provided ,for. He then alluded to his intention of dividing his property between his two daughters— giving his Anderson's Bay property to Jeannie, and his Tomshawk property to Annie. It seemed to be a hobby with Robertson to talk about bis property, and he sometimes bored me about it. He often talked about dividing it between his two daughters. When there was a bit of a quarrel between himself and his wife, he used to say he would not give her the annuity. He naver mentioned any other disposition of his property, except giving the Tomahawk property to Annie and the other to Jeannie, On one occasion, when Robert-son appeared to be in a bad temper, he said he Had left the property to those he wished to get it, and had done Mrs Robertson. Cross-examined: I suggested to ray friend that he should look after Jeannie. I did not tell him that Robertson had suggested that.

Joseph Ellison stated : lam a contractor for making bricks and tiles. I resided at Anderson's Bay for 12 or 14 years. I left there eight or nine months since. I have known Robertson 12 or 13 years. I know Mrs Robertson and Mr and Mrs Ross. He was always speaking about his property, and what he was going to do with it. When I was building a house on his bind — about 1864 and 1865—-Rob-ertson told me he was going to leave that property to Jeannie. He also told me he was going to leave his Tomahawk property to Annie. On one occasion, I met Robertson coming home from the Foresters' Fete at Vauxhall. and he said " The property you are living on is Jeannie's, and the Tomahawk property is Annie's." About two years or two years and a half ago, Robertson said, " They are pulling down that house, but you know they were to leave a house on the ground, according to the lease, worth L4OO. I will make it as good again for Jeannie's sake." On another occasion, he said — " I have made one deed that cannot be broken. What do you think of it ?" He said he had made the Anderson's Bay property over to Jeannie and the Tomahawk property to Annie. I Raid I thought he had done right. He told me that he had made several deeds before, but he thought the deed to Jeannie and Aunie was the only one that would stand good.

James Corbett stated : I am a farmer at Cardrona. lam half-brother to Ross's father. I remember Ross coming to the Colony in 1867, and being married in 1868. I remember being in Dunedin before his marriage. I came to town about his marriage. I went over to Robertson's house with Ross and Miss Robertson. We went over to see about the marriage, and I remained at Robertson's house about two hours. I had a conversation with Robertson on the following day in Dunedin. I think I met him in the street. Ross was with me. I told Robertson I objected to tha marriage, be cause Ross had been so short a time in the Colony. Robertson was not pleased at this, and wished the marriage to go on, and said that he was going to settle all his property on Jeannie. I did not know what the property was. I told Robertson I would not say any thing further in the matter. I thought Robertson would give Ross a start in the world at once, and that it would be a good thing for him. To the best of my recollection, I believe Robertson's property was valued at from L2OOO to L3OOO at that time.

Cross-examined: I came to town at the request of Ross to see about his marriage. The sesond letter I got from Ross before I came to Dunedin, gave me to understand that property was to follow the marriage. 1 doubted Ross's statement at the time. Ross was so short a time in the Colony, that I thought it was very unlikely he was going to get any property. I believe the conversation between myself and Robertson in town did not take place at the Bull and Mouth Hotel, while Mrs Robertson was waiting outside. I believe we met in George street. He said he intended to settlt all his property upon Jeannie, and that he wished the marriage to go on. I did not know there were two properties. I did not see any ante nuptial contract while I was in Dunedin. Ro&3 did not show me that document, or tell me that it was in his possession. Re-examined: I do not believe that Mrs Robertson was with Mr Robertson when I had the conversation with him in Dunedin. I saw Mrs Robertson wich him during the course of that day. Joseph Miller stated : I was formerly barman at the Alhambra Hotel. When a subpoena was

served on me I said I was going up country, but a subpcena was afterwards served o«i me. I recognise the deed produced (13th May, 1869). Three gentlemen came into the conrmercial room of the Alhambra Hotel, and asked for a pen and ink. I was asked by Ross to go into the room, and be a witness to the signing of certain papers on the table. Invent into the room, and there said I would sign if I knew what I was going to sign, but otherwise I strongly objected. Ross said he would read them ove* if I liked. Robertson said there was no need for that, it is property I m giving over to my son-in-law, Mr Ross, and be said I was to witness the papers with his good will and best wishes. I signed, and then returned to the bar. I never saw Harrold before that interview.

Cross-examined: I was a barman at the time of the signing of the deed. When I was served with a subpcena I did not know where I was going, but I was not going farther than Oamaru I was not going as far if I got work. I did not take the subpoena. I had seen Ross two or three days before that. It was after I saw Ross that I intended to go up country. I saw Ross at my house at Kaikorai. I was starting for the country because I could get no work at the time. Ido not know how to answer ihe question whether I knew the circumstances connected with the signing of the deed better after Ross called on me than I knew them before. I did not make any statement to the effect that I knew nothing about it till Ross came to me. When Ross came and asked me, I told him what had happened, and said I remembered perfectly welL I was never under the impression that I was signing a will. I was not told what it was. I was not told I was witnessing a will. I never made such a statement to Krs Robertson or anybody living, as I believed and was told that I was witnessing a will on that occasion. I did not know whether it was a deed or anything else. I was served with a subpoena at my house at the Kaikorai. I did not tell the gentleman who served me that I had forgotten all about sisrning the deed until Ross called on me and stated what had happened. I believe he asked ice if Ross had served me with a subpoena. Robertson called on me about witnessing this deed. I did not *ay to him or any mortal man that I was under the impression I was signing a will. I first heard the words, "with :ny good will and best wishes," from Robertson. I asked for the words, and remember them very well. It is a correct statement on my part that Ross offered to read the documents. I had seen Ross twice before the signing in the Alhambra. They were in the room about 20 minutes. I thought I had signed the documents three or four times. I could rot say how many papers were signed by Robertson.

Re-examined : The gentleman at the table, I believe, served me with the subpoena. He did not ask me if I knew anything about this case before he served me. Mr and Mrs Robertson have not been speaking freely to me about the case. Mrs Robertson said to me outside the Court, that she hoped I would not speak to hurt the old man. I said that I was going in to speak the truth about what was said at the tr.me, whoever it might hurt.. T had never gone into the country before to lookfor work] except when I have gone to the diggings. ; Robert Henry Wallis : I am a clerk in the National Insurance Office at Dunedin. I know Ross. I met Robertson, on one occasion. I witnessed a deed in 1870. I saw Robertson, Ross, and bis wife in the house. They were all present when I witnessed the deed. Ross produced the deed, read parts of it, explained it, and it was signed. I had a conversation with Robertson after the signing of the deed. I thought Robertson was an ordinarily sensible man, and knew what he.was doing. - Cross-examined : I signed this deed as clerk to Mr W. D. StewariP-temporarily employed; I did part of his wort at his office, and at his suggestion partly at my lodgings. I was paid so much a week. I was in his service four or five weeks. I did not do copying for any one else at that time. I never spent a whole day in Mr Stewart's office, nor copied a letter. I knew Ross two or three weeks prior to the signing of the deed. I was introduced to him on the Jetty by Mr M'lntosh, of the Customs. I knew he was engaged in a law office at Home. I remembered seeing him in Edinburgh. I had been in a law office for two or three years. Ross did not suggest thatl should sign as clerk to Mr Stewart. I asked after signing, if I would sign as " clerk," or " clerk to Mr Stewart," and Ross replied, " Yes, it would be better to put your calling." I asked the question because the deed was different from what I used to sign. I did not think when I put "clerk to Mr W. D. Stewart" that I was putting Mr Stewart's credentials to the deed. The reason why I asked Ross whether I would put "cleric" or " clerk to Mr W. D. Stewart" was the result of my previous training in Scotland, where it wasusual to put in the calling. I did not think there was any impropriety in putting in those words " clerk t o Mr W. D. Stewart." I did not think it strange that Mrs Miller — in whose interest the deed was made — was not present. I did not think the transaction was a queer one. I would not have anything to do with a queer transaction. I have not expressed regret that I had been mixed up with it. I felt a certain amount of annoyance after hearing what had transpired, but I expressed no sorrow for doing something which I ought not to have done. I expressed that feeling of annoyance in consequence of some remarks made by Mr W. D. Stewart to a gentleman well known to me. My annoyance was not for having used Mr Stewart's name. My connection with the deed has been the subject of talk.

Re-examined : I was introduced to Mr Stewart by Mr Sievwright. Mr Stewart could not give me anything to do just then. After calling upon him again he said he saw I was very anxious to get work, and he said he was rather busy just then, and he would give me something to do for a few weeks. He said he was rather cramped for room, and that I might do the work at home. I understood that the deed I witnessed confirmed prior deeds and conveyed property to Mrs Miller. Edward Jennings : lam taxidermist at the Museum. I had a boot-shop in IS7I in Dunedin. I witnessed a deed in 1871. Ross came to me with his father-in-law, and asked me if I would witness the tatter's signature. I believe the deed was read, and I signed it, (Jross-exainined : I had not seen Robertson before, but I had known Ross about 12 months. He was not a customer of mine before that ; but I have worked for him since. I understood the deed was a conveyance of a piece of land to Mrs Ross. This was the only deed ever signed in my shou. Ido not remember any other paper being signed in my shop. The signature tv the paper produced looks like mine, but I do not recollect anything about it. I have not, the faintest recollection of signing it. Re-examined : I have no doubt that it was a large document — a deed — that I signed. The colour of the ink used in signing the deed is peculiar. It is made of copperas — a powder that shoemakers use. My shop was near Park and Curie's, and previous to the signing of the deed, Ross used to come in and out of my shop 1 to look at the birds in my shop.

James Sanderson stated : lam a farmer residing at Anderson's Bay. I knovr Robert-

son. He told me he intended to make jeannie a lady. - ' P. C. Neill : lam a merchant in Dunedin. I know Robertson, and occupied part of his property at Anderson's Bay from 1867 to 1872. I asked him once or twice if he was wiDing to sell it. I know Ross. The last occasion on which I spoke,to Robertson about the land was three or four years after Ross's marriage. On the first occasion I spoke to him was shortly after 1867. Robertson said he would not sell the property because it belonged, or he intended to give it, to his daughter — I understood his youngest daughter. About a year or eighteen months afterwards, I again asked him if he would sell. He said no ; that he had given it to his daughter. I asked him if it was by will or a deed. He hesitated, and said yes. The last occasion was shortly before I left the property, in 1872. I remember Robertson saving that Ross had got the property, and should never have had it. I gathered that he repented of what he had done. I understood in 1872 that Ross had got the property without Robertson meaning that he should have it. Mr Cook acted for me iv reference to a dispute. Robertson denied having made an agreement with Johnston — from whom I bought the lease — to give half valuation for improvements on the land. I offered bo purchase Ross's interest in this property. Cross-examined : There was no provision in Johnston's lease for valuation. Robertson denied having made a subsequent agreement with Johnston for giving valuation. I suspect the reason why Robertson wculd not sell the land to me. I saw S. M. Clark iv my office about this case. He was there once for five or ten minutes. He seemed to be wishing to find out what I knew about this matter. I received a letter from Ross about this action. It' is as follows : — Timaru, 3rd January, 1876. P. C. Neill, Esq., Dunedin. Dear Sir— My father-in-law, Robertson, at Anderson's Bay, would if he could upset a settlement cf the property on my wife. As you have had some dealings with Robertson, and as some of my witness- s state that Roberts -n said to you, " Neill had strived t« best him out of," &c., anj that he (Robertson) had told you "the property w<»B settled on Jeannie" (Mrs Ross), and thit he could not sell it. Would you kindly let me know if he did so lead you to believe that the property was so settled? By so deing, you will serve me a kindness, aa the present Mrs Robertson is very hostile in the matter. 1 called to see you some 'days a/o, but you were from home. lam very soiry to trouble you, out Robe 'tson's nasty statements against you' self, as well as me. might come out in Court through the witnesses, nnd I should like to place you in a position to defend yourself against such, and, by so doing, you will protect the interests of fair play to vs — myself and wife. — Yours, &c, D. M. Ross. ' Re-examined : My suspicion as to why Robertson would not sell the property was because Mrs Robertson was present, and Robertson did not want it to come out. Thomas Guthrie : I remember the action Guthrie and Sibbald v. Robertson. I was present at the trial. I do not remember Robertson saying that he had conveyed or disposed of his property. I know Ross. > . Robertson said he had consigned Ma property over to Ross. I heard Robertson say in Court that he had given over his, property to Ross. „ Cross-examined : I had two cases in Court with Robertson., , It was in the first case that Robertson said he had consigned the. property. The first case was in "connection with'hot'de; livering four cows. Robertson said to me on the road, after giving me some bad language; ■ " that he did not care anything about me 1 ,, as he had consigned his land to Ross.'' Ross was callei PS a witness. He was against me strong enough., He was called- as a witness, against ma by Mr Harris. . ; James Brown : I was formerly, a merchant in Dunedin:*' This document; is signed byme! It is also signed by, Thomas RpbertspnJi (It was signed in my presence in my son's place, of business in Princes street. ' ' ' ' I Annie Crawford : I live at Anderson's v ßayi I have lived there over 14 years. I Have known Robertson during the whole of that time. My husband was a tenant of his. The receipt produced is in his handwriting. <"I was very intimate with RobertsoD., I have often heard him say that his property" would go to his two 1 youngest daughters, Jeannie and Annie. I have often heard him say that the Tomahawk property was Annie's, and the Anderson's Bay property Jeannie's. This was before Ross's marriage. After I got the summons in this case, I went to Robertson. I told him I got the summons, and that I was very sorry to have to appear in Court. He told me to go and tell the trutb.. I told him if I had known, I would have gone up country. Mrs Robertson said it would, be well if I had gone. Crosi-examined : Robertson said that, whoever married Jeannie, would get the Anderson's Bay property. I did not understand that Jeannie and Annie were tc get the properties after Robertson's death. Jane Reid : I am the wife of Andrew Reid, and I live at Anderson's Bay, where I have lived for 13 years. I knew Robertson and his wife. I have been friendly with them. Robertson has visited my house. Robertson told me he waa going to leave his property to Jeannie and Annie. That was before Ross's marriage. Robertson said that the Anderson's Bay property was to go to Jeannie, and the Tomahawk property to Annie. I remember having a conversation with Kobertson after the marriage in Cumming's house. He said he had transferred his pioperty to Jeannie and Ross, and that he was sorry that Ross was in it. I remember a case in the Resident Magistrate's Court, in which Robertson was a party. It was something about cows and the property! I cannot remember what Robertson said in evidence. I know there have been quarrels between Robertson and his wife. He used to come to my pl«.ce when he had a quarrel with his wife. He told me his wife would never have any |of his land, and that that was the reason he would give his property to Jeannie and Annie. Cross-examined : Mrs Robertson never accused me of supplying Robertson with drink. I did not know when Robertson intended to leave his property to Jeannie and Annie. When Robertson said he had made over his land to Jeannie, and that he was sorry Ross was in it, I understood him f,o mean that he had done so recently. Clark has not spoken to me about the evidence I was to give in this case. I understood Robertson to mean that he had made over all his property to Ross and hL wife. I asked him if it was a will ; and he said, "No;it is a transfer." John A. Reekie : I know Robertson fifteen years.' I have often had conversations with Robertson about his Anderson's Bay and Tomahawk properties, especially the Anderson's Bay property. I learned in 1865 that Robertson had a will. He said he was going to destroy that will, and leave all his properuy to Mrs Miller and Jeannie. The latter's mother was then alive. I had many other conversations with him about the property. He told me that he had made the Anderson's Bay property and the Tomahawk property very jecure to Jeannie and Mrs Miller. After Ross's marriage — in 1869, I think — I took Robertson to town in my milk cart, and he told me that on the previous day he had conveyed his Anderson's Bay property to Mrs Ross, and the Tomahawk property to Mrs Miller On last Tuesday evening I had a conversation with Robertson in the 'bus. He told me he was in a hurry to get home. He

told me he did not care a damn whowon "thla action. , 1 ,/ >3 /,Tt. t ' Cross-examined : There were fourteen people in the 'bus when Robertson said he did riot care how this'action went. Robertson said he was going to convey His' property ■ by his ''new will to his two daughters. I hays' not 'Had a conversation with Clark, about the case , further than lo tell him that I was a, witnesk in^He case. I saw him reading a newspaper m a small room with several of the witnesses. ;-'I do not think those' on the opposite* side of the table could make sense of what he was reacting. I fancied he was reading the evidence,! buf I could not swear.it. ■ ■ * -

John Charles Miller : I am a labourer'-and farmer.' I am married to a daughter of Robertson's. I have had many conversations with Robertson about his property. About April, 1870, Robertson told me he,had transferred the property to Mr Ross under such conditions that Ross should transfer, the Tomahawk property over to my wife. I asked Robertson how, .he could give Ross my property without my'consent. Robertson replied that I ought"t6 r ' I be satisfied 'with/what I had gotl .!, Accorcling.jto an oath he made on the family Bible Robertson wai to give the Anderson's Bay prppertyPto Jeannie and the Tomahawk property to my wife. ' ■> "J ■!»"'.'

Cross-examined: While I was at'Moerald, after «my marriage, the Tomahawk "property was leased to Harrison by Robertson with my consent. --1 heard in April, 1870, that Robertson had transferred all his property to- D. M. Ross. Before Ross left Dunedin he told me that he had registered the deed.of 1870," This is the first timel have seen this deed (produced). To the best of my belief, my .wife has not^geen it. I understood when I married that I was to get the whole-of the "Tomahawk prpp^erty. I understood' the youngest "girl; 1 Jeannie; was ito < take the Anderson's Bay property when Robertson died. I -never went to' old Mr Robertson's house and told him that,l had come to turn King's evidence. •So help my God I did not. lam interested in; this case for my wiieand children's sake.' So'help iay God I would not have the land. If' I had to go down on my knees and beg I would notjaccept anything from him. I put Mr Howorth her© on my wife and children's behalf. I nevar told Robertson that Ross had caused me to take an oath thatl jrould not divulge the matter, but once he had proved 1 such. a-,rascal I would do so. I never proposed to Robertson -that I should go to Christchurch, and bring Ross back again. On January Ist Tom Robertson told me that he was going to summon Ross, and had five .witnesses ?up at his house. >.- -He -had) had seven, but ißoss Haft .bribed ■ two. of ■ them. •„ He asked.me to come up.:to .his house! knd. swear before those five that Ross had made-.him drunk, and swindled him Lout of: his. property. Tom Robertson asked me if-1 did -not tell him that Ross had done. so. . I, asked him when I told him'that.* -He'said that he thought I had told him so., I replied that what Ross told me was that the property had' been' transferred .to him on condition that he should tranafer'ihe Tomahawk property to my' t wifei ''.Tbifi'Bjobertson then told me that he would .summons me. I replied, " Go on, more" dayig more^doUißba^" — (Laughter.),, „ Had Robertson summoned' me, I would ha^e f given the same; evidence IT'on''his1 T 'on''his behalf. I saw my wife reading .the' report''of the trial in an (adjoiningVrooml r ';Clark.'waa "present. ..,"',. :;*T^.; r%\\,% \ Rf T ■, Ann Miller:, lam a daughter of the. plaintiff, Tlbmas 'Robefeoiou/'My fa%Br^Kas'on'many occasions, .told "m«;that',Anderspn's/ißay^'property was for,* my,'.sister r' Jeannie, andHHe Tomahawk i property 'f6Vt'myseff.T' I''Wwf/at Moerakf when iny'sister/Mrs Ross/vjas 'married. My father told me that he had made" the Tomahawk" property over 1 to'-m^'TChis was after I eame^firom^moerajfi, "'Hefsaid that ha had made the properfy'aver.to nic and Jeannie, But I do not remember that He told me how. . To Mr'Macassey: I-know that .my father has made-two or three wills.'"-The property was always left the ,same^ „ .He.led me to believe that I and my sister would^getr.the property when he"died/ f!;He led me to believe that I would get theprop'erty before he "died, so far that I have occupied the Tomahawk f property for twelve or f out teen years'. ' ' ' L Deed of August, 1870, handed to witnsss, I have seen this .deed. ' I cannot say when I first saw it; but ii was, after I. come back from Moeraki, and before Ross left Dunedin. I saw it in my own house at the .Tomahawk. My father brought it down,-and said, that he had got it from Mr Ross. I went down jfco Mr White and got him to sign t it. . ' „ ,' ,;V v! Mr Macassey: Does not' that statement show that you have not seen that deed before ? The witness: It was very much like, it.' 1 I also saw this deed before. It must have been at my, own .house,- for I never saw one. ekewhere. Ido not. know, exactly when Ross and his wife executed a deed conveying.'the Tomahawk property to me. I learned that they had done so before Ross left for Auckland, ,'j I trusted my father all along." I think I signed a deed once. , , ' [The witness here exhibited signs of weakness, and the examination was 'discontinued.] Thonias Harris 're-called: The entries in the last page of the Bib?e now produced are, I think, in Mr Robertson's handwriting. I have seen this Bible before, It is the family Bible. The last entry is as follows,: "Gen. Robrtson was born 3d Janiy. 1849." . The original entry might have been'" 50," or 54,1 think it was a "4," • •, ,• * At 4.40, the Court adjourned until Monday, at 10 a.m. • ■. ♦ 111 1