WILSON V. TAYLOR.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13278, 18 January 1911, Page 6

WILSON V. TAYLOR.

CLAIM FOR £OO.

The Wilson;-v. Taylor case, in which; the return of d«>o‘was claimed, was continued before.Mr W. Kerr, S.M., yesterday. .. The examination of Mrs Taylor, by Mr, Hutton was'-resumed,- I 'witness .giving:, eyidenco as,to:.what money, ■.she;; had received and wliai she had. done with it. The bank book; of-her! child was produced, and'the: various transactions explained as nearly as possible.,,l t . - Further, questions wore put by Mr Huttori, but Mr Hutchison’s.protests that the matter was, irrelevant wore uphold. To Air Ilutchirieri —She wjnt out wrth , Wilson to see, the mare at Long- Acre. • The price of tlieir.arc, v£lo, was paid-to ■; her.'anch sherbariked fit,' together : other £6'. .The amount was paid into -her , daughter’s account. Previous to this-jrinjy _ siri’ail amounts had -been paid in. - Her daughter withdrew.--the amounts. Shecould not swear that she had .not • w.ith-. drawn the £2 or £,!, She wont with the . grlwhen she witlifertfthe £6;;; M and witness took part of becarisO'the money .was froni the proceeds, pf then marls. ' - ' , Witness was cross-examined ..at \length .'by Mr Hutchison as to Tier sbritces of in- ■ come and expense. Witness -admitted; that • at tbc interview . with Air Howatcr ip August reference was ; made to the sum of £6U. This had reference to the itiort- ' gage, and it was after she had seeiifMr Gordon. 1 Mr Bowater-had''ask#-her -What she "was. going to,do about the £6O mortgage, arid she-told Air Howatcr that she worivd have to try-and raise cno'Ughirioicy to bn'- that off the .£6O as well l ms'building the house. Befriro going'to Mr Gordon re the land she had-two or three conversations with Wilson. • She was positive Mr. Gordon did not draw up tlie-;agreQ-ment when they first went to see him. It was signed possibly a week later. She would not swear that the. agreeiriaut was sighed on the first day they went to. Mr Gordon’s.

Witness's rent book was produced, but witness denied that it was _She, afterwards explained that if’ was'not her old' one, but the one which' Vfas ■in rise now. The rent , book llth July and 22nd August. To Mr Kerr—Witness denied that Bowater asked how she was going to repay the '.£6o due to Wilson. She also denied that Bowatcr said to her—“ You signed an agreement to pay Wilson ,£6O you ■ borrowed from him,” and she did not tell Bowater.that it was to be included in the mortgage; and that she was to be responsible to‘Young for it.' She did note-tell Bowatcr that she was purchasing the section. Wilson told him. Bowater naid so. Witness denied all Bowater's statements about the conversation re the section.

His Worship said Bowatcr could hardly be mistaken about such a lengthy conversation. He asked witness whether she thought Bowatcr was fabricating his statement.

Witness did not know, but said that on one occasion Wilson told her that Bowater was at the bottom of it all.

Mr 'Hutchison said that was a very serious charge. , To Mr Kerr—Wilson had first represent-. Ed that £IOO was. due/and when he said £6O she thought that the section had’not been paid for. A , George Gordon, solicitor, said lie had known Mrs Taylor for several years, and had acted in a number of transactions in which she was concerned. He had seen her sign her.name, but he had.never seen her sign so indistinctly as the signature bn the agreement. - Jfrom,,, signatures- which,, he had scon lie would hesitate to say that it was her signature,., He wa«-;n.ot;un ..ex-: pert i nlnmdwriting, but he Had "been in •practice for 14 or 15 years. The signature in Question w-is..very unlike the signatures on the receipts produced unless it was‘disguised. He was not familiar with Mr Bowater’s handwriting, and was hot prepared to say that he had written , the agreement or not. He'thought, there was a- similarity between the writing on the back of the, agreement and the agreement, but he would believe Mr Bowater if he said lie did not write it. Mr Bowater would not tell a lie. There, was, a similarity. hut Wilson may'liave imitated the writing. Two or three days before getting the agreement signed he had had an interview wi% Mrs Taylor and Wilson. Mr Bowater’s name was-mentioned. There, had been some questions' as to the value of the land, for a deed of gift was to be drawn up, and the value was'wanted for stamp duty purposes. The Government valuation was>6loo, hut the land was thought to be .worth more, and Bowatcr wanted to value it. He thought Mrs Taylor mentioned the matter to Bowater. There was a mention of some money being owed to Mr Young on the property, but no. mention of £6O due to Wilson was mads. ... When the /trouble arose- between, them,. Wilson , did.

mention that he had lent Mrs.Taylor some money (witness- did not know the amount) to purchase some cows. To Mr Hutchison— I The first he heard of the gift of land was* on the sth of September. Mrs Taylor signed her name in various ways. Her signature on the -agreement; had been on a wet stamp, which caused the smudge. : The L " .was not well defined.

To Mr Ken;—He would not': go the length of saying that the signature was lot Mrs Taylor’s, Tint it looked very unlike her signature as he .knew it. This concluded the ease for the defence. .-Mr Hutton then addressed the Court. The case, he said, was really the outcome of proceedings in the Supreme Court, where .plaintiff had been unfortunate. The “case 'rested on whether or not Mrs Taylor signed the document. Even assuming that she did sign it, Mr Hutton pointed ant that the amount was not, due , till December, 1911, and therefore could not be sued for.: Counsel then wont’ on to heal with the evidence. Wilson said thathe -himself had' written the document' at Mrs Taylor's dictation. But-Mr Bowatcr

had sworn that ho wrote it,; and Mr Wilson had at length withdrawn his statement. Prom that, ydion the, man gave a circumstantial account, , his words would have to be taken with caution., Mr Bowater had stated,, that' li(? .knew of the transaction, but ilo oiie 'else; not, even Mrs Taylor, seemed to have;known, about it; “before trouble arose, between her /and Wilson. Mr Dutton then 'cffalt with .the evidence which, 'had; been', giyep on, the. handwriting, .and submitted . that Mr. Gordon’s i was - worthy, of nio.re credence than that of Mr Armstrong, who, had not scon Mrs Taylor's writing. Mr Bowatcr, again, said that Mrs Taylor had frequently written in his .office,;;hut this Mrs Taylor denied, and aM> , ’the -statement that she had sent notcA to "Mr Bowater. The notes lu\d ..been written by a. lady-help. Wilson had stated that Mrs Taylor had hanked the £6O in the. P.,0. the same .day us he obtained it ffbin .the. bank, hut the evidence had; showed that, a desposit of £18; had been made', the day after. -'There’was no bvidcnce 'as to what Mrs Taylor Mil dbife with the other £-14. Mrs Taylor had. accounted for every penny spent. The suggestion had' been made that the money was to buy cows. Two' had been bought, and '.only a- deposit: paid. Apart from the document, no ' evidence had' been given to prove-that Mrs Taylor had received £6O, • while Mrs Taylor ’had accounted for all moneys spent. He submitted that Mr'Bowater was mistaken in saying that, he did not write on the hack of the document. Mr Gordon’s evidence corroborated Mrs Tayldr’s re the mentioning t a Mr Bowater of the transfer of land. It was possible that there was « misunderstanding between Mrs Taylor and, Mr •Bo wafer about the: £6O. Unless his Worship could say he boljievcd- 'My, Bowatcr '.inyprefcrencc to Mrs Taylor, he: submitted ’that plain-' tiff could not succeed, and he submitted that no reliance" could be placed on Wilson’s evidence.

At this stage the Court adjourned till th,s morning. : . Continuing 'this morning. Mr Hutton said That the crucial point with .regard to Mr Bowater’s evidence was as to what he said to Mrs Taylor. Council did hot think had- made aniy misstatements, fu UO"' a ter might have made a- mistake/ :bnt if he .was not mistaken/'Mrs Taylor must.be said to be .lying. If Mr Bowater’s .evidence was-true and Mrs Taylor’s false, Mrs Taylor admitted what she now denied. Counsel submitted that Mr Gordon'was mistaken as to the date, the 22nd menturned by him. Mr Bowater’s and-Mrs Tayloz s evidence suggested only one interview, which probably took place about the oth or 6th -of December. Regarding ’ the cows, .Wilson said he gave Mrs Taylor, £6O. toi purchase cows, yet be'did'not deitiitr when only two cows were purchased. Wilson s evidence did not tend to elucidate matters. Under , lie stormed and raged and became insulting, and Ins evidence was not valuable. Mr Hutchison said that'the first ohscryatiou made by counsel for the defence'was that the- present action was the outcome of the recent Supreme Court - action. ' This totally wrong, the present proceedings having, been issued on the 28th of Wovemher last, long before' the' Supreme Court case.. Aotico of defence' should have been' filed on the 3rd of December last/hut no notice was given, and subsequent to the mttings, of the Supreme Court, defendant applied’for-leave,.to defend, alleging that she believed these proceedings referred'to ; .those in the other -Court. So that Mr Hutl ton a statement; was ■ obviously, 'incorrect'.

lifter., referring to the. fact ’ that the': de-, fence- had only been disclosed at the last .) minute, Mr Hutchison referred to' the criticism of Wilson’s evidence. Counsel said his conduct might he all it was alleged, but it had militated against himself: ; He had been baited by Mr Hutton in a I manner calculated to irritate a man of his temper. His evidence was that of a man ] '■-■ ho desired to tell the truth, and o;j the ; question as to whether he paid Mrs Taylor ' .fhe £6O and whether lie had been repaid I was direct and absolutely uncontrovcrt- I ible. Counsel referred to Mrs Taylor's account of how she received . <£lo from Adams, pointing out that she gave three different accounts of how she received it, once saying it was in .£1 notes, then that it was a ,£lO note,,.and then two £5 notes, qualifying’ the latter statement, by saying she “wasn’t sure.” As to the disputed . signature, counsel said that Mrs Taylor ; was described in one case as Loir j tie Annie Taylor, in another Annie Lottie I Taylor, and in the - bankruptcy as Annie <i Taylor, so that it was: not surprising that •! the signatures to the two receipts were.not , The signature-A': I. or .j A. L. Taylor was written over, a damped : stamp and the I might’ easily be meant for j an L. - Tlhe loop at tlie-top;canie fiorp the | right, not the' Mt; ‘as in an" I, and the | ■ lower ■ loop'- Sid riot shoy. In an "interview -I with Mrs Taylor, Mr BoWater had asked ; her about the .£6O. advance 'she bad had j from Wilson, and asked .licr how she was i going to pay. Mr Bownter had sworn to i this, and it was not likely he had invented i it. Mrs Taylor’s case depended on her own unsupported explanations. , • In delivering his judgment, his Worship said the case' was an extremely unsatisfactory one, and he must bo guided by tliq probabilities; The alleged immoral relations between the parties was not relied upon and was no assistance to the Court and must be disregarded. The circumstantial evidence as to the <£6o being obtained by Wilson and bis positive testimony as to its being paid over bad not been successfully combatted, and the signature of Mrs Taylor was verified by Wilson,. Mr Bowater, an independent, disinterested witness,Tand Mr Armstrong, and denied by Mrs Tavlor,, and Mr Gordon, who however, said be was not sure and declined to commit himself to. a ;; positive, statement. His .Worship considered all the probabilities to bo m favour of the, plaintiff,. and found that the document wa| a genuine one., The 1 contention raised yhj Mr Hutton that the document could not be sued on till 11th. December, .1911, the due, date, was met and defeated b- the case of Hocbster v Dclatonr, which allowed an action- to bo brought as soon as a breach is committed. Judgment wars given for. plaintiff for <£6l 16e 6d, and- interest, - costs <£2 Bs, aiid solicitor’s” fee £i Is. ~ '