MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 257, 11 August 1933, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

POSSESSION OF CHATTELS. WOMAN SUES HER HUSBAND. IMPLEMENTS ON A FARM, There were no police cases heard in the Ashburton Magistrate’s Court this morning before Mr C. R. Ori-Walker, S.M., and the civil list was not a N long one. In a defended civil action, Sarah Maud Painter, of Willowby, proceeded against William Painter (her husband) and James Painter, both of Lynnford, for £lO damages and the possession of chattels valued at £46 3s or their value. Mr L. A. Charles appeared for the defendants 'and plaintiff conducted her own case. Plaintiff gave evidence that the chattels were a gift from Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., and were formerly owned by William Painter (her husband) under a bill of sale.' She never saw the letter from the firm transferring these implements to her. Her husband had been working as a servant on the farm at Willowby although the lease was in his name. Mr W. A. Fleming outlined the manner in which the transference of the implements took place. , Mr Charles applied for an non-suit, contending that plaintiff was -not the owner of the implements. The agreement had been made between William Painter and Messrs Pyne, Gould Guinness, Ltd. No money was owing under the agreement and even if the security was transferred there was still no money owing. The evidence of the ownership was very vague. The Magistrate said he could not grant a non-suit. Plaintiff had carried on the farm although it was in the name of her husband. Mr Charles, for defendants, said James Painter was quite willing to hand oyer the implements he had to whomever they belonged. The position regarding plaintiff’s husband was rather xnox*e complicated. Their enterprise had apparently been a joint one, the liabilities being the husband’s and the assets the wife’s. Defehdant William Painter gave evidence that he had no opportunity to prevent the transference of the chattels to his wife for otherwise his other creditors would have come down on him! Replying to plaintiff, witness said that in a civil action in 1927, he had said on oath that the implements belonged to his wife. In making an order, the Magistrate said it was evident that witness had made such a statement to escape trouble and could not now state on oath that the implements were not the property of his wife. Defendant, James Painter, was ordered to give possession to plaintiff of two implements valued at £4 and £lO without costs, ’ and defendant, William Painter, to give possession to plaintiff of all the implements in the statement of claim, to pay £1 damages and costs £2 19s. Separation Not Granted. /Sarah Maud Painter also applied for separation, maintenance and guardianship orders against her husband, William Painter. In evidence, plaintiff stated that her husband had been away from home for three months and had! paid her no maintenance. Replying to the Magistrate, she said she did not think he oould pay any maintenance, but she desired a separation. The Magistrate dismissed the case, stating that he could not grant the application if there waj» no wilful failure on the part of defendant to maintain his wife. Levy Not Paid. James Souness, charged with failing to pay the instalments of his unemployment levy, was convicted and fined £l, with 10s costs. Mr A. C. Williams, who appeared for the Labour Department, said that defendant in May, 1933, had paid £5 17s 6d which was his full liability. Considerable difficulty had been experienced in locating defendant who had paid the amount before he had been found. judgment by Default. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following undefended civil cases:— Ashburton Electric Power Board v. Agnes Y. Webb £2- 13s 6d, with costs £1 5s 6d; Rowe and Denley v. Agnes Y. Webb £1 15s Bd, with costs 10s; J. T. Thomas v. H. J. Smith £5 3s los,‘ with costs £1 12s 6d; A. L. Jones v. J. Wesley, jnr., £1 10s, with costs 9s; A. L. Jones v. J. Wesley, £1 Is, with costs 9s.