THAT LOST LOVE LETTER

Southland Times, Issue 14032, 13 February 1909, Page 2

THAT LOST LOVE LETTER

And Incidental Matters. MOSTLY ABOUT BOARD. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr G. Crulckshank, S.M., a great deal of time was taken up with the rehearing of the ca u e in which Gertrude Goold had brought an action against Wilfred Thomson for the recovery of a letter, and for £2 damages for wrongful detention of the same, and with another case in which Wilfred Thomson sued Gertrude Goold and Ivor Wilson for the sum of £1 ss, amount alleged to bo owing for two week’s board on account of Miss Goold. The two cases were dealt with separately, Mr G. Macdonald appearing for Goold and Wilson, and Mr Meredith for Thomson. —The “Letter” Case. — In the “tetter” case Mr Macdonald explained that Miss Gould had lived in the defendant's house partly as a servant and partly as a boarder on the understanding that she should assist in the housework and pay 5s per week for her heard. For the first week after the plaintiff's return from the Hospital, where she had been ill for four or live weeks, it was arranged that, as she was 100 weak to do any house work, she should pay 12s 6d for her board. After she had left the house she discovered that defendant had in his possession a letter sent to the plaintiff by her young man. This he said lie would keep until the payment of certain boardmoney which lie declared was still owing. He had persistently refused to give up the letter, and ' ad further - threatened that he would show it to various people "to show her up.” It was hard to assess tile value of the letter, but the £2 damages was asked for more as punishment for malice than as compensation. Gertrude Goold, the plaintiff, said that she knew the defendant, and had gone to his house on an arrangement that she should pay 5s a week as part of her board. After a few weeks witness had to go to the Hospital, and on coining out was unable t i do house-work, and agreed with defendant that she should pay 12s Gd for one week, and then go on paying 5s a week as before. The week after comin, : of the Hospital she paid 12s Gd, second week she was away in the country, and the third week she was back at the house, leaving at the end of the third week. The 12s Gd was paid in advance, and she paid Cs for the third week and an extra

day. She owed nothing to the defendant. Witness had missed a latter which she found that Mr Thomson had possession of. Thomson had refused three times to give it up till the board was p;iid. She had replied that she owed him nothing for board. Ho had threatened to show Uic letter to people to “show her up.” He still refused to return the letter. To Mr Meredith: She had given evidence in the same case about three weeks ago. She had not then said Lo the Court that defendant had told her first that he haxl found the letter at the gate, and then that one of Stone and Kussoll’s men had' found it. She had nol told anyone that she had planted the letter as a trap to sec if Thomson would take it. She had been in the Hospital fur three or four weeks. Mr Wilson had paid the 12s fid on her behalf, but she would pay it back. This had been paid in advance because Mrs Thomson had said that she was short of money. .Mr Wilson had advertised for lodgings for her. She knew before she came out of the Hospital that she was nol going lo slay any time wil.i Die Thomson’s. She had come out of the Hospital on the Sunday and had received the letter the next day. She missed the letter the following week, about a fortnight before she left Thomson’s. The letter was addressed to tier by her Christian name. She had not gone to the police aboul the letter. She had been sent for. The police not mentioned the letter lo her. Mr Thomson had told her that (lie police had the letter. She had a good idea, who had the letter now. She supposed that her father had it. Mr Wilson had told her that her father had the letter. She knew that Mr Thomson had shown the letter to a Mr Cell and to her sister. "She was sure lie had shown the letter to Hardley Bell; .she could not swear whether it was the letter or a copy—it was the letter all the

same. hhe did not know why her father was keeping the letter, and would say nothing as to its contents. The police did not want her in connection with the letter, but about something connected

with her father. She was in the habit of always telling the truth. She did not know tv ft o had told Air Wilson that her father had the letter. .Mr Thomson had

.showed her the letter, hut had not opened it out. That was before she left the house. 'l'ii Mr .Macdonald: She had the letter in her dress basket under the bed. That was the last time she saw it until Mr Thomson laid it.

To the .Magistrate: The letter was from .Mr Wilson. She had not hern put to any inconvenience exactly through not having the letter. ■Mr Meredilh, for the defence, submitted thal there was no evidence before the Could that Tuornson had the letter. The evidence was that Thomson had it early in .November, hut that now it was in the possession of the girl's father, lb- asked for a non-suit.

.Mr .Macdonald rose to say that the defendant had come into his ollico to show him the letter, hut ho was immediately overwhelmed with objections while the “point of law” was being settled. The non-suit was refused.

Mr Meredith then went on to say that the defendant had found the petitioner’s letter, and that there were certain facts in it that he thought justified him in handing ‘it to the girl’s fattier. Together they had taken it to the police station where it was kept for some time until enquiries were made concerning its contents. The police had advised Hr Goold to take private action. There was no damage proved. The girl’s fattier had the letter and refused to part with it. Wilfred Thomson, electrician, said that tlie plaintiff. Miss Goold, had boarded in his house. He had found a letter lying at his gale, had read it and there were certain facts in it that lie thought justified him in handing it to the girl’s father. He would not have read the letter at all only that it contained a reference to his wife’s name, and to certain blankets of which Wilson advised Miss Goold to deny any knowledge. At Mr Goold’s suggestion ho had taken the letter to the" police and Mr Goold wanted them to take action. The police had the letter for a few days and gave it back to witness who handed it on to the girl's father. When he found the letter he showed it to the girl, and said that lie would not have the likes of her around his house. Tie sai that on account of the letter lie would send her away. There was no date on the letter. To Mr Macdonald: He thought that it was quite right the girl’s parents should know that she had stolen the blankets. He had not said that he would keep the letter until the hoard money was paid. It was not a question of board at all. Mr Wilson had guaranteed and was responsible for the board money. At Mr Goold's request ho had also shown the letter to the Mayor. To the Magistrate: There were apparently copies of the letter being shown all round the town, and ho was getting blamed for it all. To Mr Macdonald. He had not shown the letter to any others than the police. He Ivad rover told Miss Goold Hurt he would “show her up,“ but that he would show it to her perpla. He was afralC of rendering Ijimseif liable for aiding and abetting theft. He d? 1 not regard himself as a kind of public benefactor.

He had not shown the letter to anyone else that he was aware of.

The Magistrate: Anyone would think that It was a piece of literature, the way it has been copied. To Mr Macdonald; He did not want to keep the letter. It showed evidence of theft and Mr Goold wanted it. He had a copy of the letter after he had been served with the summons, but Mr Goold had the original. Miss Goold had never demanded the letter. He had told her that the police had it and she had called him “a d liar.”

Miss Goold: Oh— h — h— h— hj!!! The Magistrate said that it was an extraordinary position. It would have been tetter to have had Mr Goold joined as defendant. Decision was reserved. —The "Board” Case. —■ In the action brought by Wilfred Thomson against Gertrude Goold and Ivor Wilson, Mr Meredith appeared for the plaintiff and Mr G. McDonald for the defendants. Mr Meredith explained that the sum of £1 5s for two weeks board and lodging for Miss Goold was claimed. The point in dispute was whether the rale to bo paid was 5s or 12s Gd per week. Mrs Thomson had made the arrangement with Wilson that if Miss Goold came back she should come simply as a hoarder. .Nothing had been paid for the two weeks claimed for.

May Thomson, wife of Wilfrid Thomson, staled that she knew Miss Goold who had stayed with them some time last year. She had vmno back from the hospital on the m;■' - r-sanding that she should pay 12s Gd . seek. Mr Wilson had called to guarantee the payment, saying that Miss Goold would not be well enough to work. Witness had received the 12s Gd from Mr Wilson for the lirst week. Miss Goold had gone away on the Monday of the second week and had come back on the lollowing Saturday, staying all the third week. Mr Wilson would not agree to pay for the time that Miss Goold was away. He had said that they could summon him for it. He had been in worse cases and had always wriggled out of them. They had not paid Gs for the third week. Miss Goold had not dune any work during the Lime she was there as she was not in a lit state to do any. She did not want to lake Miss Gooiu in, bill Mr Wilson had asked her to do so, as no one else would.

To Mr McDonald; Miss Goold had not received anything other than the 12s Gd for the lirst week. No arrangement had been ina.de for the time Miss Goold was away. Wilson had made the arrangement for three weeks.

Wilfrid Thomson, husband of the last witness, gave evidence that ho had refused at first when Wilson asked him if Miss Gooid could come back. Wilson had said that no one else would take her in, and he had agreed to take her back as a boarder for 12s Od a week on the understanding that she would look for a place as soon as possible. She wa§ at that time an invalid in the mominn mid was out till eleven and twelve o’clock at night. There was two weeks’ board owing at 12s fid a week.

To Mr McDonald: He had never seen 6s said to have been loft on the table. He had also spoken to Wilson in the street of the arrangement with regard to the board.

Mr McDonald, for the defence, said that Wilson bad arranged with Mrs Thomson for Aliss Gooid to pay 12s fid for the Urst week, and 5s for the subsequent weeks when she was stronger and would be able to assist in the housework. Ivor Wilson, insurance broker, explained the arrangements ho had made on Miss Gould's behalf with the plaintiff's wife a week before Miss Gooid came out of iho hospital. Mrs Thomson had said that she had not a penny in the house, and could he give her 12s fid Lo buy the children some food. He had replied Unit Miss Gould had not paid him, inil lie would not see them stuck for food, and had given them 12s fid. No receipt was received. Mrs Thomson had previously told him that Miss Gooid could go back on the same understanding as before she went into the hospital, and that mulling would bo charged for her clothes remaining at the house. At nine o’clock on the last Saturday night lie had given Miss Gooid Gs to pay for the third week and so settle up all accounts. Miss Gooid had gone in and Mr Thomson, who hud been lying on the couch, had taken tite 6s. Witness was standing at the door. To Mr Meredith: lie had not told Miss Gooid what lo say. What no had written to her in the letter was just "barrack.” U was not in tiie present case anyway. lie had not advertised for a place for Miss Gould during ihe lime she was in the hospital. They had any amount of friends and she could slop anywhere so far as that went. He was keeping company with tlie young lady and naturally lie looked after her well. Thomson was not honest if he had said that Miss Gooid did not pay (lie fis. In the letter he had written to Miss Gooid lie had as a piece of fun told her lo deny the existence of certain goods if any questions were asked. Mr Meredith: Dili you write this?—

“About the blankets, Gertie, it they say you look them, you swear that you did not. your word is as good as (heirs is because they did not see you lake them, and if ever they accuse vou of taking them, you accuse them of Hlling lies and blaming you for what you nave not KOI. I think you could give them to me, Gertie —sheets and all, and then 1 will deny any knowledge of same, ami tell Mrs Thomson to say she never saw cr knew anything about them. Then 1 can stow them away for future use."

■Witness; Ves, 1 wrote thal. What about it?

Continuing ho said that ire advised the girl just as a matter of barrack, and to swear blind that she did not have the things. The blankets were Miss Gooh.i s own property. He did not know how she had taken them away from Thomson’s house. The blankets had been taken by Miss Goold when she left home. He had never been slopped from visiting the young lady at the tiospital because of some offensive remark lie had made. Ho had always been allowed to stay quarter of an hour in accordance with hospital rules. To Mr McDonald: The blankets so far as he knew were Miss Goold’s own property.

Gertrude Goold said that after she had come out of the hospital Mr Wilson had made the arrangements for board, 12s Gd for the first week, and for the other weeks the same as before. On the Saturday she left she had : aid the Cs to Mr Thomson with a request that it be given to Mrs Thomson. Mr Wilson was there at the time. Before that she had offered the 6s to Mrs Thomson, but the latter had refused to take it, saying that she wanted 17s Cd, 12s Cd and 5s for two weeks respectively. To Mr Meredith: She had put the money ((Is) on the end of the table. It was her money ultimately because she had to pay it back. Mr Wilson gave it to her at the front door. She had gone into the house at 9 o'clock to get a parcel. She could not got it earlier in the afternoon because die house was locked up. She hau paid, notning while she was staying at Moore’s; she kept houfie while Mrs Moore was away. Mr Meredith: Xou would vu oat a good deal in the evening? Witness: I was not out every evening with Mr Wilson, don’t you think it, Mr Meredith. I had plenty of places to go to. I would have very litde to do to go parading the streets with Mr Wilson. Mr Meredith.: Yes, you would have very’ little to do. Witness: I don't mean what you mean. Hugh Wilson said that he was no relation to the defendant of the same name, but he knew them both by sight. He iivod near Thomson’s. On a Saturday afternoon he saw Mr Wilson keep watch while Miss Goold went into the house either by a back door or a window. There was a tank in the way of the view. Ke heard Mr Wilson say something about. Icavrig money on the table. Miss Goofcl ossne out with same things.

This closed the evidence. The Magistrate said that the evidence of the last witness seemed to strengthen the assertion about the 6s having been paid.

Mr Meredith submitted that His Worship should take into account the behaviour of the defendants and their demeanour in the witness box.

His Worship: I’ve been doing nothing else all day.

Judgment was given for 19s (25s less the Gs said to have been paid), witli 11s Court costs and 3s witness's expenses.