Extraordinary Evidence.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 88, 13 December 1913, Page 5

Extraordinary Evidence.

THE J. W. WARDING CASE,

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

A case presenting some unusual features was heard oy his Honor the Chief Justice in tne Wellington Supreme Court tnis week. It was a suit arising out of. bankruptcy proceeding., in which the Official Assignee cl against a bankrupt named Jolin Wniu Harding, under a statute of Queen Elisabeth, in order to set aside a settlement made by the bankrupt on hi* Life. Mr C. P. Skerrett, k.C, witii jhim Mr Welch (Wanganui), appeared Ifor the plaintiff, the defendant irepresented by Sir -John Finulay, K.C., Iwitli Him Mr W. A. Sim, and Mr Allijson (Wanganui). | Mr Skerrett, in opening the case, 'said that the action was one by the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy to set aside a transfer of two properties maue by the bankrupt to his wife just antecedent to their marriage on November 4 1911. Counsel commented on the peculiar nature of the agreement ami outlined at length the financial transactions of the defendant.

The Bankrupt in the Box. James White Harding, i)io ; defendant, formerly of Hawera, said that before his bankruptcy he had been .. fanner and stock dealer and was now a wharf laborer. He first met his present wife in Auckland in 1910. He was then a widower with two children. He proposed marriage to Miss Hunt, who simply laughed at the idea. She was then confidential clerk to the then Mayor of Auckland. He did not tell her anything of his position or occupation because he was a stock deaier, and if she had known it she would not have married him. The stock dealers got a very bad name.

In Reply to Mr Skerrett, witness said that on the way to Wellington he succeeded in persuaumg Miss Hunt to leave the train and'stay with him at Hamilton, where they registered as Mr and Mrs Harding. They subsequently adopted a similar course at Taumaruhui, and then they came on to Wellington, where they stayed for ten days or a fortnight. At Hamilton he could not say that any thing was said of the marriage, and while at Wellington they never discussed the relative positions they were occupying towards one another. He persuaded Miss Hunt, to go r to Brisbane with hiuif t)'ut on the trap he said nothing to lier on the subject of getting married. He again'kirgell lier L marry him and she said she would noi unless he miide^Vsettlement of Id's pn> : perties at Tal'ikir Fcilding, ; Otakeiio. and Norfolk road; Slre<Vent away with, her brother, but returned to Brisbane, and they again lived as man and wife. She asked § him about the settlement ; and lie said be would see to it; but did not do so. Defendant came over to-New Zealand, and did not return -to Brisbane, but met Miss Hunt when.-JslWWl&ne to fipeflington.! He agreed to majke thpKnetJtienient, and they went together to Hawera, where they again lived as mini and wife. He had• promised to; give Miss Hunt all his landed property:' free 61 jinortgage, but in JVanganni he told her he could not give her all the properties. She' said she wahtokb the two freehold properties free of ..mortgage. Defendant said he could not give them, but afterwards he said he would give them, but not free of mortgage. At the further heaving of the case on Thursday Harding denied that Miss Hunt had asked him to many tier on her return to Wellington from Brisbane. While they were in Wellington he and .Miss Hunt had definitely agreed that half the Norfolk Road property, the Tariki, Otakeho, and Feilding properties were to be settled on her if she would go to Hawera with him. He had, however, given nothing in writing, and could have broken his promise when they got to Hawera if ho had chosen to do so. •

Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett. Harding was asked numerous questions regarding his conversations with Miss Hunt about marriage and settlements, and pointed out that the replies by the witness differed materially from replies given by him to similar questions at tne examination before the Official Assignee. In regard to one question, witness admitted that lie bad told a lie about it. Mr Skerrett: Why? Witness: Because my solicitor hau said that yon were on a fishing expedition, and that 1 was not to give any information.

The Chief Justice: Surely you don't think that that entitled you to give I'ulse information.

Counsel then proceeded to quote u number of telegrams sent b.y defendant from Brisbane.

In regard to these, defendant saici | that he had no recollection of two telegrams to his accountant Bassett, announcing his return to Xew Zealand. Ill' might, however, have sent j the message;;. Three weeks after J his return to Xew Zealand he was [shown a balance-sheet to July 31, but he could not remember Hassett telling him of a loss between March and July ol £3841. Questioned further as to his shipments to the Old Country, defendant denied, that he knew ! that he was going to make a loss, but counsel read him a series of letters j in which he stated that he was sure I to make a loss, and that this had been worrying him. He did not tell his Crotlitors that he had settled I lie Norfolk Road and Otakeho properties on .his wife. |At ih>d request of the manager or Lhe

bank at Inglewqod,Jie had furnished a statement of his affairs in which he had' set down these two properties amongst his assets. He, however, subsequently had. withdrawn that stat-emenb. Before Miss. 'Hunfc went to iirisbane she knew 1 nothing, of hi:; business—*at least he never iconulted her in regard to it. .Mr Skerrett: Who was your attorney ? Witness: Mr Kitto, manager of the Loan and Mercantile Company. Did your Wife Know That. I don't think sb. ; I .Is this letter (an instruction to Mr Kitto to act as attorney) in your wife's handwriting:-—lt is like it, but 1 could not' say that it is. MV Skerrett produced voluminous tiles of correspondence written to moat companies, stock agents, and bank managers by defendant's wife, whose signature and handwriting defendant identified.'' In rogardto one letter so written, and dated May 30, 1911, witness stated that he could not explain why his wife had written it. (The question was asked because the date of that letter was long before that on which the witness had said that his wife had been made acquainted with

>ny of his business affairs.) Defendant was examined at Length by Sir John Findlay to whom he stated that lie had never owed any money to a witness named Surrey, nor had he ever made him an offer to transfer a property to him. He bad been in business for 1-1 years prior to the settlement, and, during the last year, :ie bad been very successful in operations on a large scale. On the second occasion on which he saw Miss Hunt in Auckland he had asked her to marry him. This was after he bad asked her to dinner at the Star Hotel, all bis attention to Miss Hunt during bis first and second visits to Auckland were with the intention of inducing her to marry him. He had wished to persuade Miss Hunt to marry him without any settlement, and. if sic had done so, he would lie very well off to-day. Further, ho was quite certain that, until the time that the marriage settlement had been made in YVanganui, Miss blunt know nothing of his business. He merely dictated letters to her, as he would to an ordinary typiste, without explaining their meaning.

The examination of the defendant had not been concluded when the Court adjourned.— Dominion.