A Loan or a Gift?

Tuapeka Times, Volume XLV, Issue 6136, 11 February 1914, Page 3

A Loan or a Gift?

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday Samuel Stewart (Mr Jftnlayson) sued Moses Gii-van ,(Mr Moore/ for the recovery of £SO, alleged to have been loaned to him free of interest on the 4th .November, 1912. Th« defendant admitted receiving the money, but claimed that the money had been given to him as a gift for his Want son who had been named after the plaintiff. He admitted further that he had given a receipt for the money. The evidence of the plaintiff was to the oll'ect that after a talk about the defendant's position at his parent's! home on the night prior to the date of the payment of tne money, he had voluntarily offered to make a loan of £SO free of interest; that he drove I down to defendant's place the next day with Mr Girvan, sen., and after conversation disclosed his intention of making a loan to him oi £SB, free of interest, if it i would be of any use to him. Defendant replied that it would be of great use to him and gave , him an acknowledgment in the torra I lof a receipt which on returning he handed over to,the custody or Mr and Mrs Girvan, senr. Witness admitted that he did not ask for the receipt. Since then witness had been seriously ill and, having need of the money, he had asked for, and secured the return of the receipt, and then applied through Mr h'inlayaon for repayment of the loan.

In cross-examination by Mr Moore, witness denied positively, that the money was given as a gift in consideration of his friendship with defendant's parents and the fact that the child had been named afler him. He admitted that he had not disclosed the amount us owing to him in sub ; sequently filling in his old age pension papers. lie did not take the naming of the child after him as a compliment, but admitted having attended the christening on the 27th December, when he had pinned a £1 note to its pinafore. In reply to the Court as to whether he proposed to put in the receipt, Mr lfiulayson said it was unstamped and -if it were put in as evidence plaintiii would be required to pay a line of £lO Is. He quoted authorities to show that he could refer to it without putting it in us cvidenco. Counsel for defendant admitted the giving o! the receipt. The evidence of the defendant was to the effect that on the day in question the plaintiff visited, his place in company with his (witness's) parents and that after they had been out in the garden for a time looking at some potatoes plaintiff hud asked liim to come inside as ho wanted to give him some money. On complying .with the request plaintiff' produced a' bag of notes and sovereigns, placed it on the table and asked hint (defendant) to count [ out fifty sovereigns. On being asked what this was for plaintiff said " If it will not do you any good it will do the boy good." Defendant said he thanked the plaintiff for his kindness, and as an expression of his gratitude gave him a receipt for the amount which he did »ot want to take, lie had never asked plaintiff for a loan and the giving oi the money was quite unexpected. They had named the child Samuel Stewart on account of the friendship existing between plaintiii and his parents aud with no expectation of any pecuniary benefit. A local sliopkeq.ei itei.ii.eit u conversation with pliuutilfon the day of the christening winch led her to the conclusion that lie had made the child a monetary gift. John Girvan, father of the defendant denied that there had been any discussion of Ins sou's alt'aiis iu his house ou the uiglu prior to the money being paid over or any suggestion made as to a loan. He corroborated defendant's evidence as to what took place on the payment of the money His Worship, in giving his decision, held that in view ot plaiutilfs age and his financial position the probabilities were in favor of the view that the money was given as a loan This was supported by the fact that a receipt wits given for it The plaintiii was entitled to recover aud judgment was given accordingly with costs' £5