POSSESSION OF FURNITURE

Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1929, Page 12

POSSESSION OF FURNITURE

: £75 WORTH ALLEGED GIFT “ACTION UTTERLY IMPROBABLE.” MAGISTRATE GIVES HIS OPINION. The utter improbability of a gift of £75 worth of furniture being made by a working ' man earning less than £t> a week to the . woman in whose house he boarded was the deciding factor, in the judgment given by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., at the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday lor Arthur Dennison Hall ' against Helen McKechnie. The claim was for the recovery of furniture, including a 1 wardrobe, bedsteads, blankets, rugs and a sewing ' machine, valued at £74 19s 6d, and for £5. damages for the detention, of the chattels. Judgment for possession of the goods was withheld for a week-, the magistrate stating that if they were returned in good order and condition he would not allow costs. He would not allow the' claim for damages in any case as he considered the plaintiff had been very foolish himself and his trouble was his own fault. The plaintiff was a pork butcher, said Mr. J. H. Sheat on his behalf, and as a result of coming into contact, with Mrs. McKechnie he went to board at her house together with his son, aged 10, about November last year. When jie went to make arrangements for lodgings he found there was very little furniture in the house and Mrs. McKechnie wanted some. An agreement was made whereby Hall should pay for the furniture and Mrs. McKechnie should make a return by reducing by £1 a week the ■ !£2 2s 6d which Hall was to pay for board. Hall, the defendant and a Mrs. Looney Went to Nolan’s auction, mart and furniture worth £34 7s 6d was bought being knocked down in the name of Miss Corbett, the maiden . name of Mrs. Looney, a friend of the defendant, and was paid for by Hall. Later further furniture was bought from Purser's to the value of £37 15s, Hall giving the order and paying, though the account was in the name of Mrs. McKechnie, . “FURNITURE TAKEN BACK.” Some tiriie in January a discussion took place between Mrs. McKechnie and Hall in which she said she could not pay and would give up the idea of.buying the furniture, which Hall would have to take back. Hall had built a house since and. wanted the furniture. Receipts for the payments for the furniture were put in a drawer, but the defendant took them and sail she would not hand them over. It was clear .'that nothing had ever been deducted from . Hall’s board and that the whole purchase price of the furniture was paid by him. At one stage a Mr. Reid was taken to the house with the object of inspecting the furniture to see whether it was sufficient security for a loan of £lOO .which Hall proposed to make in order to build a house. Mrs., McKechnie had 6 piano and had suggested it should be put in with Hall’s furniture as a security. She admitted there was furniture in the house belonging to Hall. Purser would say Hall 'paid for the furniture and Hall’s bank book would show that withdrawals of about £75 had been made at the time. Evidence similar to the statements made by Mr. Sheat was given by Hall, who, when cross-examined by Mr. C. White, for defendant, denied ever giving the furniture to Mrs. McKechnie. He was only a working butcher earning £5 17s 6d a week and was not in a position to give away £75. He built a house which Mrs. McKechnie proposed to rent from him, paying 27s 6d a week, the interest on the mortgage, but she was unable to pay so the deal fell [through. Corroboration of Hall’s statements regarding the loan negotiations was given by Frederick Reid, the builder of Hall's house. A claim that the chattels were given to Mrs. McKechnie by Hall and the gift was completed by their delivery and the handing over of the receipts to Mrs. MdKechnie was made by Mr. White. There was no suggestion of any agreement of sale or purchase, and it was to be noted that the vouchers for the purchases from Nolan’s and Purser’s were in the name of Mrs. McKechnie. She would say the furniture was given to her by Hall because it was the best home he had had and she had been so good to his son. EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENCE. Mrs. McKechnie's side of the question Was that she had discussed the purchase Of new furniture in Hall’s presence and he had suggested she go to a sale and buy some goods which he would pay for, rather than see her purchase them ©n the instalment system. She had arranged for Hall’s child, which was very backward, to go to special classes at the West End School, and Hall was so grateful that he would willingly have bought more furniture at the sale. He even did try to buy a suite but she would not let him.

; Hall still suggested the purchase of tf, suite and went to Purser’s and ordered one. When it arrived he said it was hers and gave her the receipts to keep. Hall later asked for the receipts •back when lie wanted to raise a loan on the furniture. The first agreement between them regarding Hall’s house was that she should pay £1 per week, but Hall later changed his mind and said she would have to pay 27s 6d a week and provide hoard for him and his son. {After the furniture was bought it was she who. suggested the payment of £1 a week for it, but Hall refused to take Any payment. .Mr. Sheat: Have you ever had £75 {worth of furniture given you before? Defendant: Oh, no! But I have had presents. Where is your present husband? —In {Australia. What do you think would be his view r pf your acceptance of this present? —I do not know. . You will admit the whole thing is unusual?—Oh no. There is no telling ,'yyhat a man and a boy will do if they dre pleased with a place. Asked by the magistrate why Hall should make such a present to her the defendant said it was because hers was the first real home he had had for years and she had been so kind to his son. It was not a convincing reason for a fcift of £75, said the magistrate. For Hall to ask the terms he did for his house did not seem as liberal an action as his previous gift. One would have thought he would have let her have the house cheaply. •Evidendb the same as that given by

the plaintiff was given by Alice - Ann Corbett, who added that Hall “went practically buying mad,” and by James Millen, a son of the defendant. His difficulty was still unsolved, said the magistrate at the conclusion of the defence. Evidence to support a gift must be conclusive, and he could not understand why a man earning the wages Hall was receiving would be foolish enough to make a gift of the value of £75. The solution might bo that the parties had misunderstood each other and he could not be satisfied as to the defence that the furniture was a gift.