MONEY-LENDING TRANSACTION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXX, Issue 12963, 23 January 1913, Page 5

MONEY-LENDING TRANSACTION.

A PECULIAR CASE

IA peculiar civil action Avas heard at the Magistrate's Court to-dky when John Henry Buzza, of Waerenga-a-hika, carpenter (Mr T. Alston Coleman) proceeded against Nellie Gray, otherwise known as Nellie Buzza, of Gisborne, boardinghouse keeper (Mr L. T. Burnard). to recover the sum of £25 alleged to have been recei\'ed by defendant on November 9, 1912, from Thomas Batt for use of: the plaintiff. In opening, :Mr Gqleman. said tho facts of the case came' Avitlun a narrow; compass, aithough they Avere peculiar: He said the parties came from England some time ago as man and Avif e. They lived together about Gisborne and the country until November last. Prior to that month plaintiff desired to assist an immigrant from England, and to do that wanted to send tlie necessary money to the Government. Up till then plaintiff j had given, defendant all his Avages to keep' house, both parties placing imp-licit reliance, on each other. When plaintiff wanted the money for his friend he got £25 from defendant, who dreAV it from the bank. Shortly after the parties quarreled, and plaintiff Avent to work in the country, and defendant continued on with the boardijjg-house. When the immigrant reached Gisborne he Avent to the residence of the parties and defendant told him plaintiff was in the country but did hot represent there had been a separation. She took Mr 'Batt in and the following day, asked him to refund the £25, representing that it Avas her money. Mr Batt Avas dubious in handing OA r er the money, but upon defendant producing her bank-book showing the withdrawal and receipts he paid over the money. Subsequently plaintiff made a demand for the money but defendant, from some imaginary idea of a grievance, refused to pay it over. Mr Burnard remarked' that the defence Avas tliat the , money belonged to defendant and that plaintiff had no more right to the £25 than to any oilier j money she had. Plaintiff deposed that he Avas work- j ing as a carpenter and joiner at Te Karaka. He and defendant had been living together for six years. Witness explained that he first riiet defendant at his brother's residence at Home, and she Avas introduced to him as a widow. He courted her in the usual way, proposed marriage and Avas accepted. Subsequently when Avitness spoke, about getting married defendant refused, saying her husband, avlio had deserted her some years before, was alive. They cam© to Gisborne about fiA'e years ago and continued to live as man and Avife. He gave all his earnings to defendant, who had no property or money Avhen they came out from England-. They liA-ed in Gisborne for about twelve months and then Avent to Motu, Avitness going there six months before defendant. They hstarted a boardinghouse in Roebuck road, but it was a failure. During the six months Avhile Avitness was at Motu defendant let tlira town house furnished, unknoAvn to, witness, and Avent to. work at Te Karaka. On an average lie sent her £2 15s per week from Motu. Thev Avorkedi at Motu for about three months as a married couple, getting £2 10s a week and found. Witness ° gave his earnings to the defendant. He then went to work at his trade, and earned from £3 to £4 a week, and handed it all to defendant, excepting about ls a Aveek for tobacco. -Defendant paid for •the household requirements. They Avere at Motu until early in May last year. During the time he was* at Motu he earned about £350, Avhich he had given to defendant. The average household exrjenses Avould be about £1 6s a week,' including rent. Witness only spent about £3 in clothes Avhile at Motu. Unknown to Avitness. defendant purchased a boarding-house in town, and" Avitness Avas compelled to leave good work at Motu arid come to Gisborne. When they left .Motu defendant Avould have about £70. or £80 in hand. He went to Avork'at his trade in Gisborne, and -gave his earnings to defendant. Besides what she had earned at Motu, defendant had earned about £7 at nursing. Witness could not say what defendant had srpent on clothing. She bought furniture from time to time, and also spent £17 in four Aveeks on jewellery. When at Motu witness told defendant he was going to assist his friend, Mr Batt, from England, and asked for £25. She handed over the money Avithout any argument. It Avas drawn from the savings bank account of moneys he had given her. Witness forwarded the £25 to the Immigration Department. Before Mr. Blatt arrived Avitness had two quarrels 'with defendant on account of her conduct, and o\ r er defendant refusing, to, give an account as to hoAv matters stood Avith the boarding-house. After the' latter disagreement witness obtained a job at Te Karaka at better pay. Four clays later he received a letter from Kirk, Burnard. and Sievwright on behalf of defendant, ordering him out of the house and claiming everything in the house. Consequently witness did not enter the house again, excepting to get his private belongings. Witness asked, about his money, and defendant laughed at him. and said it was in the business, and he could not get it, Batt had not arrived up to that time. By Mr Burnard : Defendant had been married at the age of 19. Witness had not heard that her husband Avas a drunkard, . and that her mother had to take her home. She did not refuse to marry him, because of - a feeling of mistrust on account of her previous experience, but she said her husband was alive. ■She suggested she could live Avith him as his lawful wife. On arrival in New Zealand defendant again refused to marry him. During the twelve months they Avere together at Home defendant worked at about 30s a week". Witness earned about £3 a Aveek. Defendant earned about £38 in Gisborne at cooking; ,she did not earn £67. Other items for nursing. ( etc, Avere mentioned, but Avitness said he could not say in some instances whether defendant received the amounts stated. When Avitness got the £25 he-- did , pqt tell' .defendant it would be paid back to her particularly. He ■■-said-' it Avould be paid back. After the luncheon adjournment Thos. Batt, milkman, gave evidence that on his arrival in Gisborne defendant told him she ought., not to allpw him sin the house. Hbweverj she invited him in and told him she and plaintiff had parted, as they could not agree. Witness said •he ; would like to pay the money back, and defendant said she had drawn if out of her own account, and shoAved him a •.bank-'"' book. Next day witness paid her the £25. The Government receipts were made out in plaintiff's name. Later defendant told witness if plain-, tiff had not put a notice in the paper stopping her credit she would have paid him the two £10 cheques that sho owed him. By Mr Burnard : Witness' Avife had a disagreement with defendant, and she requested them to leave tho house. Witness had tried to reconciliate the parties. Mr Burnard said the evidence for the defence would show that plaintiff did not earn so much as he had said he had, and that defendant had earned more than he thought. At Home plaintiff earned very little, and it wap on account of the depressing times that they came to New Zealand. Tlie passage money Avas paid out of defendant's own savings. After corning to Gisborne defendant earned close on £150. She put £90 into the boarding-house, and had about £20 left in the savings bank. Tlie acjtiion might just as Avell be to recover the £350 or more that plaintiff said he had given defendant to his own' use as to try and recoA r er the £25. (Left sitting.)