THE FAVELL CASE:

Otago Witness, Issue 2265, 29 July 1897, Page 34

THE FAVELL CASE:

JUDGMENT FOR THJB DEFENDANT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr Carew, S.M., f»ave judgment in the case of Louisa R,ollinBon v. Edward FavelL His Worship's decision was as follows :— This is a claim for £15 for money lent. The plaintiff's evidence is to the effect that on fouldifferent occasions in 1896 she lent defendant sums of money amounting in all to £17, and that in February last she received from him tyro sums of £1 each, leaving the balance of £15 now claimed. The plaintiff hag no documentary evidence in support of her claim, and she says no other person was present with them at any interview when she gav9 defendant money or received money from him. The defendant denies absolutely that he ever borrowed money or had any money transaction with plaintiff, and all that plaintiff asserts in that respect he denies. The important part of Mrs Harris's evideuce is that she says on the ISth February last she was at Mrs Beunewith's house when defendant came there by appointment to see her sifter, Mrs RolliDSon, and that there, unsaen by Mr Favell, Bhe overheard a conversation between them. If what she says is true, defendant admitted owing money to the plaintiff, but said he did not think it was so much a^ plaintiff then told him it was — namely, £17— but he also said he would not dispute the amount with her. Mrs Bennewith says that on a Monday (apparently the 22nd February, 1897) the defeudant came to her house, waited impatiently for a little while, and w hen about to leave told her to tell Louie (meaning Mrs Rollinson) that it wa= all right— he had a little money for her. Mra B--nnewith says she suggested tint he harl better go down Castle street to meet Mrs Rollinson, and he said ha would do so. This corresponds with Mrs Rollinson's evidence She says she met him on the 22ud February at the corner of Castle slrcet, that he told her he had been at Mrs Bennewith'b, and then gave her a£l note. la considering how far the evidence of Mis Harris and Mrs Biiniewith is reliable, I must bear in mind in what degree it rnav br. mterestea evidence. Mrs Hai ris is plaintiff's S'ster, and she says plaintiff owes her for six weeks' nursinir. Mrs Bennewith is a sister-iu-law of the plaintiff. There is no evidence to support this claim for money beyond thit of the plaintiff and these two witnesses. The plaintiff's evidence as to the first item— cash lent, £10— is that the tirst money she received from Miss llieburn (now Mrs Hopkins) after the fire was £1 16s to get some cups and saucers and other things to replace gocis destroyed by the bun>in°: of her house, and tho 1 next money she received from her was £20, or it i might be £23 ; but in cross examination she said she thought it was £15 or £16 she received on | that occasion. That a dny or two N after receiviug the money iihe was in King street on her way to purchase furniture, when she met the defendant, and that after a little conversation he asked her |to lend him £5. She says she hesitated and said ; i " I have no £5, only £10 tiores." He replied : " Well, coulrt you make it £10?" That she said : " That's a lot of money, you know." He replied : " I have a doctor's bill for £17, and Dr Clojs is pressing me." She says that then she opened her handbass and gave him a £10 note. In crossexamination she said the £10 was part of the £15 or £16' she received from Mi&s flaeburn. I will point out here that plaintiff is wrong as to the ! amount she received from Miss Raeburn on that occasion. Mrs Hopkinß (then Miss Raebnrn) says (-he received a cheque from the Times Ofti-e ■ in March 3, 1896, and cashed it on the same day 1 at the north branch of the Bank of New Zealand, I and that she gave the same money she received i from the bank (£l* 9* b'd) :o Mrs Rollinson"; so Mrs i Rollinson rereived, not £20 or £23 as she said j in her examination-in-chief, nor £15 or' £16 as I she said iv cross-examination, but £13 93 fid. It ! may be Mrs Rollinson had forgotten the amount i she received. I f . is very strange if Mrs Rollinson on her way tb purchase furniture, wh : cb, from haying baen burnt out, she mutt have badly required, without f>ny objec ion beyond saying i "That is a lot of money," and without any t mention <tf repayment, lent Mr Favell £10. She was in poverty before the fire, receiving aid ; from the Benevolent Institution, and the £!0 ■ and £3 11s which she paid that day for fnrni<lure would have exceeded the amount she received from Miss Raeburn. There is another important point with regard to this item of £10. Mrs Rollinson swore she gave defendant a £10 j note. She is iso»itive it was a £10 note, and if there was no £10 note the conversation she relates , could not have taken plac. She also says the £10 note was part of the money she cot ~rom Mis* • Raeburn .(now Mrs Hopkins). Mrs HopVins swore that the money she gave Mrs Rollinson was the same money she received at the bank in exchange for the cheque. She said she could not swear it did not include a £10 note, but she did not believe it did. Mr Pierce, the teller at the bank, produced the cheque for £13 9s 6d, and i swore that he cashed it. An endorsement on the ' cheque in hig writing shows that it was paid with I two £5 and three £1 Dotes and 9s 6d in silver, , and he says he has no doubt the endorsement is j correct. It is the usual practice to make these 1 endorsements, and there is no reason to suppose that in this instance it was not correctly made. It seem', then, from the evidence of two independent witnesses that at the time Mrs Kolhuson says she gave Mr Favell a £10 note she was not possessed of % £10 note. I am not satisfied that £10 was lent, and there is a doubt in my mind as to whether Mrs Rollinson lent any money to , defendant. Judgment for defendant, with co3ts of court (103), witnesses' co3ts (255), professional ! costs (2U). The judgment for costs will be ia the I usual form against the estate of a married 1 woman.