4, the hearing was concluded by Judge G. W. King of the action in which Me.
1H. Zimmermann sued]
Mrs: R. Golienberg for $2,100, sai be due in connection with jewellery transactions and. the funeral expenses of Mr. I. Goldenberg, who! tied on February 24, 1926.
Judgment was given for the plain-Lif, with costs.
Te was alleged that on December 6, 1924, the plaintiff lent the defendant $2,500 to redeem diamonds and other jewellery which she had! pawned with a man named Yok Sang. OF this sum, $1,000 had been refunded in the form of a legacy from Mr. Goldenberg. The bal of the claim was said to comprise payments which the plaintiff had made to the Jewish Funeral Astociation after the death of Mr. Goldenberg.
The defence was in the forin.of a counter-claim that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant in the sum_of $400, the balance of a sum of $1,000 which had been paid over to liquidate the faneral expenses in question.
Mr. A. M. Preston appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. E. T. Maitland defended.
Yok Sang. the jeweller, said that he had lent the defendant $2,500 on the security of the diamonds and other precious stones. They had! been redeemed by Mr. Zimmermann who had visited his shop in Broadway for the purpose in the com-of the defendant.
Giving evidence, the' defendant} that her husband had died on February 24, 1925. The value of the jewellery then in her own and her ate husband's, possession was about '$6,000. During his illness she had pawned some of the jewellery for '$2,500, but had redeemed it before her husband's death. It was untrue to say that the plaintiff had redeemed the jewellery or lent her money to do so.
She had lost her position with the Royal Cafe because of the plaintiff's attentions. The plaintiff had made her presents in the form of jeivellery on many occasions. On the day. of her husband's death she. had given him $1,000 with which to pay all the funeral expenses and it was untrue to say Uhat the plaintiff had paid such expenses for her.
Cross-examined by Mr. Preston, the defendant said that the only reason she could advance for the plaintiff redeeming the jewellery for her was that he liked her "as Wiked him." After redeeming the Jewellery the plaintiff had kept it, but had returned it to her three or four months after her husband's. death. She had never told the plai The jewellery. hhusband's and she owed the plaintiff nothing.
Hung Ah-yee, proprietor of the Royal Cafe, said that after her husband's death the defendant had continued to work in the cafe at a monthly salary of $150. She had been dismissed as she was frequently absent. Her late husband had had $1,000 interest in the Cafe but this sum had been returned to him during the sickness that preceded his death.
Giving judgment, his Lordship. said that the case was by no means fa pleasant-one. There was a direct conflict of evidence and the only facts which had been proved were that the jewellery involved in the dispute was the property of the defendant, that the plaintiff had redeemed the jewellery from the pawnshop while in the company of ne defendant, and that at that time it was in the possession of the plaintiff. He had no alternative in: the circumstances but to believe the: story of the plaintiff and there would be judgment for the full amount of his claim, with costs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.