A CURIOUS CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5283, 13 June 1895, Page 3

A CURIOUS CASE.

At the Chrietchurch Magistrate's Conrt this afternoon, before Mr H. W. Bishop, 8.M., H. Chislett sued the Public Trustee for the sum of £36 16s 7d for meat supplied to the late Mrs Petersen, of Barbour Street, off Ferry Road. Mr Hunt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lane for the defendant.

The plaintiff stated that he commenced to supply Mrs Petersen with meat in 1889. He continued to supply her with meat np to six months before her death. The reason he stopped supplying her with meat was became she accused him of drunkenness. He gave her credit on the strength of a statement she made to him that she was connected with the Conrt of Denmark. He never sent in an acconnt for the meat till after Mrs Peterson's death, Mrs Petersen always seemed to live well.

Mr Lane called T. C. Norris, secretary of the Charitable Aid Board, who deposed that Mrs Petersen had received assistance from the Board since it waa constituted ten yews ago; he believed she had received aid six years before that. She had received Bs, 9s and 10s a week. She was an aged lady, and bore a good character.

J. Hamilton, district agent for the Public Trustee, deposed that he was appointed administrator in the estate of the late Mrs Petereen. The estate consisted of very little furniture and one hundred sovereigns, which he found in a workbox in the house. He advertised for claims, and the account now sued for was sent in by the plaintiff. No other tradesman's accounts were sent in to witnee's, who thought it very strange that such a large account should be sent in for butcher's meat. He objected to pay the amount and preferred the Court to settle the dispute. The Charitable Aid Board would also send in a claim against the estate. Mr Bishop said Mr Hamilton was quite right in bringing the matter before the Conrt. It was a great pity that all the money found in Mrs Petereen's house could not be handed over to the Charitable Aid Board. It seemed very extraordinary that the plaintiff should have allowed his account to run for so many years without making any claim. He (Mr Bishop) did not, however, feel justified in misbelieving the positive evidence given by the' plaintiff, and judgment would be given in Mb favour for £30 with costs.