A TAIHAPE FARMER ON HIS HOLIDAY.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLI, Issue 11583, 25 May 1916, Page 8

A TAIHAPE FARMER ON HIS HOLIDAY.

The subject of this story, a stout man of GO or more, was described in the Feilding Court yesterday' as a farmer of Taihape, single aud very rich. The evidence given by himself and other witnesses on a charge against the licensee of the Halcombe Hotel for supplying him with liquor while drunk, and in a case in which the licensee claimed payment on a dishonoured cheque for £77 16s, it was shown that he started from borne on the 28th March last in his own motor car, having previously cashed a cheque for £5 for refreshment on the way. He reached Halcombe during the evening in company with a brewer’s traveller. Here his condition for three days was described as “ruddled” and he Jived up to the popular description of “ a jolly good fellow.” The principal outstanding fact of his three days residence at Halcombe was. that he signed cheques for £137 aud appeared at table for every meal. Of this sum £IOO was said to have been presented to the child of the licensee, but the signeure of our farmer on the cheque for this amount did not satisfy the Bank manager at Taihape, and it was ’dishonoured. The licensee then went to the home of the Taihape farmer. This was tbe day after his return. He had been so near death, that in the words of bis housekeeper a tot ot whisky saved his life. He arose to meet the licensee, still in a snaky condition, and after some discussion and in spite of the objection of the housekeeper, the farmer was induced, as a compromise for the dishonoured cheque to give another for £77 IGs The counsel for the farmer contended that his client had been compelled to sign by the influence of a strong •mind on that ot a person debilitated bv liquor, aud though it came out that the licensee had given the farmer drink from a flask of whisky before the signature was obtained, it was not sought to prove that it had been done with an ulterior motive. When in that condition, said the housekeeder, he would sign anything even a will. However, this cheque was also dishonoured, and the signatory in the box said he did not want to pay anything for his three days’ entertainment at Halcombe. It was not the first holiday' of the kind he had had. The Counsel for the plaintiff in the claim for the dishonoured cheque contended from previous decisions ' that a person could not relieve himself of a contract on the score of being under the influence of alcohol except by proof of complete drunkenness. His Worship deferred decision on botli cases, that against the licensee, and that of the claim ou the dishonoured cheque,