OATHS AGANST OATHS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 28, 1 February 1913, Page 7

OATHS AGANST OATHS.

AX EXTRAORDINARY CASE. The Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning was occupied in hearing a. case, which, on the face of it, was nothing short of astonishing. Two farmers wefc the litigants. One, the plaintiff, lent the other £l5O, and paid the money by cheque, consequently the payment was not disputed. Plaintiff stated on oath that a bill of sale over the defendant’s stock was agreed upon, though not legally drawn up, that 10 per cent, interest was to be charged on the loan, and that on May 26th last defendant paid him £5. Defendant, also on oath, deposed that there was no bill of sale, the interest was 5 per cent., and the sum paid on May 26th was not £5, but £lO5. The money was paid in cash, and no receipts were given.

The amount claimed was £llß 6s Bd, and the plaintiff was George Keighley and the defendant Walter Hamilton. Mr. W. G. Kenrick, S.M., was on the Bench.

For.the plaintft Mr. Cecil Wright appea-'ed and Mr. G D. Hxmmeit, a (Patea) acted for the defendant. Mr. Cecil Wright, in his opening, said that about August Ist, 1008, the plaintiff, who had known the defendant (and he thought the latter milked on shares), was entering into some deal or other, and the plaintiff agreed to help defendant along by lending s sum of £l5O. Defendant was to give a stock mortgage at 10 per cent., and to pay back in a year. The £l5O was duly paid. Numerous applications had been made for payment of the debt, hut it was not till a change of venue whs applied for, that there was un\ suggestion that defendant did not owe the money.

George Keighley, dairy farmer, said in evidence, that on the 31st of July he handed the cheque of £l2O, dated August Ist, to the defendant. De fondant agreed to pay 10 per cent, cu this sum, which was the usual rate, or a little lower, on stock mortgages at that time. The loan was for twelve months. He thought defendant had about thirty cows and two or three horses, and, at the time, ho thought bis security was not very good, lie had written three letters about the money, demanding payment. Cross-examined by Mr. Hammerton, witness said he had never received any payments from defendant by cheque. An amount of £lO paid as interest was received by him in cash. On the 26th May last year defendant had paid him the turn of £5. He was certain that £5 had been paid, and £5 ohly. v '

Mr. Hammer ton said tlio defence, was brieflly that on the 26th of May last a sum of £lO5 was paid to plaintiff at his house, near Stratford, and this settled the account between the parties. Walter Hamilton, farm manager, Motoroa, deposed that the rate of interest agreed upon was 7-i per cent., and plaintiff had said, “I can’t let you have it any lower than that.” He did not give plaintiff a bill-of-sale over the stock, for at that time the factory had one over the stock for £2OO, and he thought plaintiff knew this. The three letters he had received from plaintiff were not about money, but about certain? cattle deals. The first he had heard of the claim for £llß was the summons. After the summons was received, ho received a delayed letter from Messrs. Wake and Wright, addressed to the wrong person and the wrong place. On Sunday, May 26th, witness went to the house of plaintiff, and looked at some cows. Plaintiff asked if he would let him have some money. Witness said “Yes; how much do I owe you, George?” The upshot was that witness said he would give plaintiff £lO5, and plaintiff then said they would “cry quits.” The sum was paid to plaintiff in “big money,” tjiat was to say, in £5 and £lO notes. He had paid by cash, be-

cause when he had on two previous occasions paid two sums by cheque, plaintiff had “growled about the exchange.” He had collected the sum of £llO 3s from money owing to him in the neighbourhood from services of his horse, ts’one of that -money went into his bank book, but he had other sources of revenue, and other moneys had been paid into the bank. He had ho doubt about this matter.

His Worship: Understand the position. May 2'6th is not such a very long time ago. The other side asked how much you owed, and you paid £lO5 in cash. You didn’t come with the object of paying this sum, but, accord irrg to you, you came about some cows. Yet you had this largo sum on you. And then yOu took no receipt. You never asked for a receipt, and you paid the money in cash. Witness': He never asked mo for a receipt.

His Worship: You actually didn’t pay in cheque, hut in cash. Supposing he died next day. You had no proof of payment. His executors might sin: you, and what could you do?

Witness: .1 paid him £SO before, an never got a receipt.

His Worship: But you paid by cheque then, and the money came out of the bank. Do you mean to tell me that you can afford to pay money without getting a receipt? Do you know that if you had taken a receipt this case would not have been here? You actually ask me to decide whether von o iid £TCo or to.

Mr. Wright then (ros •-examiii.ed wtness as to the entries made in witness's pocket-book. Witness : r.snrea counsel that the. entries were a'! made at the time of the trausa ti .nr;.

Mr. Wright: It’s a nice, clean, bright little honk, and the entries were made during the last four years. \ou swear these entries were put down when the deals wore made, i’ll leave his Worship to judge cf that. Questioned as to how lie was “con veniently paid this largo sum of over £IOO within one week,’’ witness said-

he was paid in money and cheques. Witness continued that he and plaintiff were alone when he paid over flic money. It was in the evening, and it was a lovely, moonlight night. Mr. Wright: And you paid over this money in the moonlight? AVitness: 1 never said that. It was a, lovely moonlight night when wo were driving home.

’ To the Magistrate: None of the ■cheques 1 received during the period March to May for the services of his horse, were crossed cheques. 1 will swear to that.

Permission was given to plaintiff to re-enter the box to give evidence as regards the time when the money was paid. Ho deposed that it was fairly late in the .evening, and was after an earthquake. He remembered taking up the lamp in his hand, as they were sitting in the sitting-room. Defendant said he was prepared to swear that the money was paid before the earthquake. Mr. Hammerton then summed up, and the Court adjourned for lunch. On resuming, his Worship said lie would not call on Mr. Wright. His Worship briefly Ivan through the evidence, drawing attention to the remarkable nature of the defendant’s statements, and said that as the receipt of this £l5O was admitted, it lay upon the defendant to prove that he had pand the money all back, and this duty lie had not discharged. AVith regard to interest, the receipt for £ls showed interest at the rate of ten per cent., which disposed of defendant’s claim that it was 7\ per cent. Mr. Kenrick said that the "defendant’s story that the £lO5 was paid in a backyard after tea, when, presumably, it was so dark that complainant could not have seen the difference between a £5 and a £oo note, was improbable. Judgment would bo for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed—i.e., £llß 8s Bd, Court costs £3 5s ,aud solicitor £6 18s.