HOUSEKEEPER'S CLAIM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 1407, 1 June 1916, Page 4

HOUSEKEEPER'S CLAIM.

SUDDEN COLLAPSE OF DEFEND-

ANT'S CASE

A case in which there was an element of romance, and which was commenced at th6 Magistrate's .Court some days agd, was resumed before Mr .W. A. Baa-ton, S.M., to-day, but it came to a sudden conclusion in favor of the plaintiff. The action was one in which Olga Steele (Mi* Burnard) proceeded against Alfred James Grindle, engineer (Mr Stock), to recover £21 10s for wages for housekeeping at a bachelors' establishment. Evidence for the plaintiff was given some days ago by a member of the 13th Reinforcements who had resided at the "bach."

In opening the case this morning, Mr Burnard explained' that' plaintiff was a maa*ried woman; aud had been deserted by her husband, and she was earning a ' living, at nursing. Defendant! had met with an accident, and plaintiff had nursed him. He invited her to go and keep house at the "bach" for £1 a AVeek- and she wont. The defence, assetrted counsel,' w*as a -msany and rep'reliensible one as the cross-examina-tion oif Trooper 'Davies showed and de fendant now wanted 1 to deny that there 'was aiiy such arrangement.- Mr Burnard said he would first calh the defendant

himself. . v , - - > r ■

Defendant,: in reply to Mr -.Burimrd said that prior to May of last year he was acquainted with - '' plaintiff for about a week: 'Plaintiff: did not go and re side at his' place at , his request. She did, however, reside at liis place from May to October'. When she left in October -witness did not owe- her any money, either -.for wages or anything else, lie had not, since \ October, incurred any dabt to plaintiff; Mr Burnard' produced a letter dated March 19, 1916, that was written- 'by witness : to plaintiff, whom he addressed as "Dear Olga." In this heepxlained why he had qpV 'been able to 'pay her certain moneys. •'•' ' ■ '■" ' * l His Worship: What was this money for? — That letter does not show I owe Miss Steele any money at all. It refers to tu request by Miss- Steele to assist her to pay her rent. Mr Burnard produced other letters ol a similar nature, in^ one of which wit-ness-referred to payment of "the balance." Witness said that referred to any promise ho had made to assist plaintiff. He had never" promised her aiiy stated sum. He paid plaintiff two sums, ids and £1, in March last. Ma* Burnard :• Here is another letter in which V.ou refer to liquidating your debt to ; plaintiff. What about that? Witness: That was a debt Of ! gratitude: -■ >' '•'" ' '' ' ' ■-" •'"'• ,i( - ; ''-'' , Tlien you do admit you owe her. a debt of gratitude? — Yes. For keeping house for you? — No, • for nursing me 'in .-my illness. For "anything else?— Yes, for 1 the affection she showed me.'

Fpr affection she bestowed or still bestows?—That she liad bestowed.

Replying further to Mr Burnard, witness said he Was not defending tho case with tho idea of blackening plaintiff's character.' He maintained he did not owe her 'money for wages. He admitted having stated in a letter that ; he had £30 coming to him, but this was not to lead plaintiff to believe he would jhave sufficient money to pay her claim. At tliis stage Mr Stock asked leave to 'confer with his client, stating he liact known nothing about these letters. Subsequently Mr Stock ' intimated that in view' of the correspondence produced he had- instructed his client not to proceed with the ; case v '"YoU have adopted a Very proper course under the circumstances," stated the magistrate. "It is a disgraceful thing on the part of the defendant , to' -hove allowed this case to come into court at- all." 1 " ;•;/•,,'• Judgment Was entered , for plaintiff for the' amount claimed, with £4 4s Costs. Mr Burnard applied for immediate execution',? on the ground that defendant : , had told people" that if he lost the case he • intended- tp immediately ' get .out; •"■*'■•' "" ' - '■..'-'■■ ••■''» yi-r-r ---■ " His Worship'*' 'said hei' would require some evidence* to that.

Mr Stock said defendant was an engineer at the Gisborne Freezing orks, receiving a salary, and he was not likely to go away. ''• After counsel ' had conf erred oh the matter. Mr Burnard said jhe Would call his witnesses, as they were present, anM theri the matter could stand, over until to-riiorrow' mo:|ning. James Dunleavy, barman, was called, but it turned, out that he only knew Of something he "had- heard mentioned by another 'man, and the application was deferred until to-morrow.

11-M-ess Assn.-