AN OLD MAN’S BOARD.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18309, 21 April 1931, Page 6

AN OLD MAN’S BOARD.

CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE. LOSS OF WAGES. I CASE FROM TIRAU. A claim for £4 4 3s 3d was brought in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court, to-day, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., plaintiff being J. M. Runeiman, butcher, Tirau and defendant the Public Trustee as administrator in the estate of George Manning, deceased For plaintiff, Mr C. Bennett appeared, defendant being represented by Mr Wood. According to Mr Bennett plaintiff in or about February, 1928, agreed to provide board and residence for Manning at the rate of 80s a week, the money to be paid as funds became available. Plaintiff and -llis wife also provided deceased with certain moneys and with clothing, tobacco and other things whilst he was with them. Manning was later drowned and as there were monies available in his estate plaintiff now r sought an order for the amount claimed, which plaintiff said was owing to hjm. The claim included an item of £5 loss of wages whilst searching for the body of deceased, who was drowned. Plaintiff’s Evldenoo. In evidence plaintiff said in . February, 1928, Manning found himself without a home, as he had been living with his son George, who had had to walk off his farm. Plaintiff and his wife agreed to provide the old man with board, residence and other necessities until lie could gather enough funds to repay them. Plaintiff incurred a lot of expense in driving the old man into Hamilton to see his solicitors and in oilier ways. There was also a loss of wages while attending to the funeral of deceased. Plaintiff said his . wife was a grand-daughter of the late Mr Manning who was 81 years of age and practically a cripple. True, the old man used to potter about the garden and do odd jobs but this was of no assistance to, nor was it at the request of plaintiff or his wife. The trips into Hamilton were necessary in order to arrange Mr Manning’s financial affairs.

I-lis Worship: What , were the:|6 trips actually for —To see his solicitors.

His Worship: But was there any need for you to accompany him? — Yes. He oould not sign his own name and he was a very self-willed -man. Mr Wood: But what was the necessity for you to accompany him every time he came into Hamilton? Plaintiff said there was. Deceased's son, William, was supposed to pay his father £lO a month for his keep, but did not do so. Plaintiff brought deceased into Hamilton four times, twice in a taxi and twice in plaintiff’s own car. He also took him to Te Arohft.

Ills Worship: Do you not think it excessive to charge £5 a trip for four trips in three months to collect £2 10s a week? Plaintiff said he wrote a number of letters in connection with the money on the old man’s behalf. Plaintiff at tills stage becamo faint and had to lie accommodated with a chair and water. Mr Wood: Did any one ask you to join in the dragging operation for deceased’s -body? Plaintiff '.-aid h'e was requested to do so by the police, and lost a week’s wages in consequence. Ail Genuine Expenses. Plaintiff was taken through the various Items of his claim by Mr Bennett, and said they were all genuine expenses incurred. Mrs Runeiman, wife of plaintiff, said she was present when the arrangement was made with the late Mr Manning for his maintenance at her home. Deceased's youngest son William, was to have paid Ills father £lO a month. ■ln answer to Mr Bennett witness said the old man received no money from any outside source whilst living at her house.

His Worship: Were deceased’s solicitors or William Manning written to in connection with this money? —No. Mr Wood: How did Mr Manning meet his death?—He was accidentally drowned. George Manning, a son of deceased, said he was present when the arrangement was made for the old man's keep. This was to have been at the rate of 30s a week and Mr Manning was to have paid when he got the money.

His Worship: Where was he to get the money?—There was some due from his brother as interest on the farm mortgage. Mr Wood had no evidence to offer for the defence, hut pointed to the rule that courts did not act upon uncorroborated evidence in such cases. The expenses allegedly incurred by plaintiff in connection with the old man’s funeral, ringing up relatives, publishing funeral notices and other such charges could not he held as a legitimate charge against (he estate, to which plaintiff was a stranger.

Mr Bennett. analysed that all items should he paid for from Hie estate. ilis Worship said it was absurd that plaintiff should claim to he paid out of Hie old man's estate for attending (lie funeral, if Lliis principle were acted upon, every man wiio attended Hie funeral of another would have a claim for loss of wages thus incurred, against the deceased's estate. Ilis Worship added that taking into account the particular circumslanees of the case, lie thought the amount claimed for board, tobacco, shirt and socks should be allowed, ilis Worship allowed plaintiff 1121 for board, £2 11s for tobacco, Its 3d for a sli.rt and socks, car hire £-1 10s, pills ami a registered letter 2s -id, a iolal of £2B 17s 7d. Piainliff was allowed witness’ expenses amounting to £3 lbs (Id.