SHARE IN £100 PRIZE

Taranaki Daily News, 1 May 1937, Page 9

SHARE IN £100 PRIZE

TWO SISTERS IN COURT I •" ' JOINT SOLUTION OF PUZZLE. DECISION BY MAGISTRATE. ARGUMENT HEARD, AT HAWERA. Claihiing that she had been defrauded of £50, half ihe prize money in a newspapet puzzle competition, , Marton Stringer, Wellington, a married woman, successfully proceeded against her sister, Ethel Fanny Moss, married woman, Hawera, before Mr. J H. Salmon, S.M., in the Hawera Court- yesterday. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £50 With costs amounting to £9 ls 4d. Mr. M. J. Burns appeared for plaintiff and Mr. R. J. O'Dea for defendant. Plaintiff used to visit her sister often. said Mr. Burns. She helped defeiidant with the puzzle. Mrs. MoSS did the actual writing. Mrs. Stringer offered to pay a half share of the entry fee. In consideration of Mrs. Stringer's having given her sister a sum of money just previously she would not accept this and paid the whole entrance" fee herself. Entry was made under the joint names of M. Stringer and E. Moss. When the prize was announced Mrs. Moss telephoned Mrs. Stringer, who was then ,at work at the Shop of Mrs. Dbfialdsoh, to say that she had won £100 in tlie competition, but did not mention that it was the joint entry that had Wbn. Mrs. Stringer was later asked by Mrsi Moss to sign a paper, which she did without reading its contents. This turned out to be an authority to endorse a cheque in the joint names of Stringer and Moss. Became Suspicious. When Mrs. Stringer eventually became suspiciouS and through a solicitor pressed for an explanation, defendants were unduly reticent. Only 'through indepehdent investigation had it been discovered exactly what was the docUment she had signed. The money had then been drawn by Mrs. Moss. \ Plaintiff was not a woman accustomed to business transacttons; she had never previously won such a prize and had never handled a bank account. She and her sister had always enjoyed friendly relations, said Mrs. Stringer. Mrs. Moss, who was putting in a number of entries on her own accoimt, offered to "shout" for her in a joint entry. Mrs. Moss said that she neVer had any luck using her own name. She would use her Sister's name and if they won they would "gb flfty-fifty" in the prize. They worked on ihe puzzle several afternoons.

Witness detailed several words for alternative solutions which she had chogen in disagreement with her sister, Which had later proved correct. She first knew oi the prize when Mrs. Moss telephoned her on . the morning of December 23 and said that "E. Moss, Hawera," had won £100. Next aftemoon witness was leaving Hawera- for Wangahuii She paid Mr. Moss 2s to take her to her sister's home and then to the statton. Moss said: "I want you to Come down the road to a justice of the , peace and sign a paper." Witness said, "What for?" Moss said: "Oh it is. nothing.- It ' is all right." Justice of Peace Visited. She knew this . had something to do with the puzzle, said witness. She thought it was to prove that she had helped to livork the puZzle out. At tliat time slie thought it was one of Mrs. Moss' own entries that had won. They Went to a justice of the peace. The paper was placed before her and she was told where to sign. Prior tb that her sister bought her a number of articles of clothing. in the shop of the justice of the peace." She did not read the paper before signing. After that She, Moss and Mts. Moss met at Moss' place for afternoon tea. She asked her sister fbr the neWspaper cutting of the winning announcement. Moss said' the paper was in another room but did not produce -it. Witness then felt that something was wrong. On the station she again asked for .the cutting, whereupon Moss left her to speak to someone he saw and did not come back until the train was coming into the station. He theil showed her. the cutting and to her surprise she saw that her own name waS there' as Well as that of her sister. Mrs. Moss said, "If you come back to Hawera I will put a 'fiver' in the bank for you." There was no time for further conversation. She came to the conclusion that she had been cheated, said Mrs. Stringer. When she arrived at Wellington three days later she talked the matter over With her husband and a solicitor'S ,-advice was sought. Mr. O'Dea: "Did not Mrs. Moss say, 'I have wbn £109'?" Witness: "She said. 'I have won £100. E. Moss, Hawera'." "Klsscd Her Good-bye." Leaving "Wanganui for Wellington two days later witness saw Moss ahd Mrs. Moss on the station. She kissed her sister good-bye. Mr. O'Dea: "A wbman Whb has robbed you of £59?"— "Yes." Mr. O'Dea: "You did that because you knew you- were not entitled tb one cent of that monby."— "No." Mr. O'Dea: "Do you seriously suggest that if you were ehtitled to this money your sister would try to do you out of it?" — "Yes, and her husband, too." Mr. O'Dea: "Did you tell Mrs. Dohaldson that you did not know you had rights of action until a policemah told you?" — "No, I did not." "Has any policeman seen you about this?" — "Yes. Deteetive Doyle came to see me about it at Wellington about a rnonth ago." Mr. O'Dea: "Did you know that all the solutions were sent in under the name of E. Moss ahd M. Stringer?"— "No." "Did you think only ohe was ih your name?'— "Yes." Mrs. Moss' Evidence. On December 15 she put five ehtries in the puzzle competition, all of which she had worked out herself, Said Mrs. Moss. Her sister's statement that she had helped in these solutions and was an equal partner ih ohe was untrue. The five solutiohs she put ih under the name "E. Mbss and M. Stringer." Her reason for this was that she had entered so often Without sticcess that she asked Mrs. Stringer if she could use her name, as it might bring her luck, Mrs. Stringer had said she could use her name. Witness Wrote bbth hames 6h all the entries. No promise to share on a flfty-fifty -basis had been made. Nothing had been said tb Mrs. Stringer abbut gettihg any share of the prize money. The only two suggestions made by Mrs. Stringer had hot been correct. This she had told her sister when conVeying the first news of the wiri over the telephohe. She had then told Mrs. Stringer she would give her £5. Mrs. Stringer was very pleased at that. She explained to Mrs. Stringer that in all probability the cheque would be made out fbr the two narries ahd if that was the case it would be necessary to sign a paper to enable her (Mrs. Moss) to get the money. Mrs. Stringer had, agreed that this was all right as she

had nothing to do with the money. Mrs. Stringer had seen the prize announcement in the • newspaper and knew when the money would be paid. In reply to Mr. Salmon Mrs. Moss stated that Mrs. Stringer saw the result in the newspaper on the afternoon of the day she left for Wanganui. Mrs. Stringer made no comment - other ■ than expressing pleasure ' at her sister's luck. The cutting had been taken put the day before. The cutting was put away with sbihe other , papers and later she gave it to Mr. Moss. - Mr. Salmon: "On the 24th. Mrs. Stringer cartie !to your house tb see the result -•and ybU gaVe her thb . newspaper?"— "I could hot have 'done that." "You have told us that your sister saw tlie. result at - y, our , house? The fact is that you do not know . whether ;Mrs. Stringer saw the ; f CSult br hot?" Witness: "That is correct." In reply to a further question, Mrs. Moss stated that subsequent to the telephone conversation she told her sister the contents of the prize announcement. Elsie Maitland, Wanganui, said that her sisteJf, Mrs.- Striii'gbr, /had telephoiied her on December 23 to say that Mrs. Mbss had won the £109 prize, that she was to get ' £5 ahd Miss' Maitland £19, and that although the ticket was in both names she had nothing to lo with it. Later when Mrs. Stringer stayed with her at Wanganui on her way. to Wellington Mrs. Stringer said that her name was on the puzzle and she was going tb let people * think she had won , half the prize.. Mrs. Stringer had referred to Mrs. Moss' husband "fussing around as though the money Was his." She had also said that the two words she had suggested tb Mrs. Moss were wrong. Mrs. Stringer had hot at any time given the ihipressioh that she considered herself ehtitled to half the prize. ; i Telephohe Conversation. Mrs. Helen Donaldson, proprietress of a Hawera cake- shop, stated that Mrs. Stringer started ' Working for her on Decembbr 22. Oh Deceihber 23 Mrs. .Stringer told her that Mrs. Moss had won £109 in a competition. Witness heard Mrs. Stringer tell Mrs. Maitland of the win bVer the telephone. Mrs. Sfrihger said nothing to her abbut haV-" ing a share in the prize. After Mrs. Stringer had seen Mrs. Mbss she told her that she was to have £5 and the sister in Wanganui^ £10. When she saw her this week Mrs. Stringer told her that she hact not ktiown she was ehtitled to any share until she saw - her name in the: paper. Mrs. Stringer said " she had asked the police and .they had told her she had a claim. ." Mr. Bhrns: "You recall Mrs. Stringei? ringihg her gister ht Wanganui?"— "Yes." "Did Mrs. Stringer say ahythihg about not having anytltiiig to do With it?"— "Certainly nbt." tironias Dehis Moss said he had told Mrs. Stringer that if both names appeared she would be required to cash the cheque when it arrived. Before goihg tb a justice of the peace they obtained a fbrm frorri a bank. Mrs. Stringer was aware of what she was signing and signed freely. The justice of the peace showed her where to sign. He had no recollection of Mrs. Stringer asking to see the prize-winning amiouncement. At the- station there was no mention of this, although. he had the clipping in his possessioh. It had been CUt oUt ahd given hihi by his Wife. "It is regrettable tliat a claim of this sort should come before the court, beeause it irivolves the veracity of two sisters ahd must result ih estrangement," said Mr. Salrhbn ih givihg judgnieht. Evidence of both parties, he Continued, had shown that both sisters worked on this puzzle, although defendant had ehdeavoured to minimise the part played by plaintiff. Docuihentary evidence strongly supported the story of Mrs. Stringer and evidence of other witnesses had . hot shakeh her except oh minor points. The evidence of Mrs. Donaldson had hot shaken the statements of Mrs. Stringer, but had shaken that of Miss Maitland. MrS. Moss' evidence had been shoWh to be unreliable by her statement that she had shown her sister the winning announcement when Mrs. Stringer had no definite recollection of this.