TWENTY YEARS AFTER.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 289, 7 December 1925, Page 5

TWENTY YEARS AFTER.

AN INVOLVED CASE. CLAIM FOR £6000. INSURANCE AGENT'S AFFAIRS. An action, involving , a claim for £6068 17/9, was commenced in the Supreme Court this morning before the Chief Justice. Sir Robert Stout. The plaintiff was Robert Richard Holmes, insurance agent, Auckland (Mr. Northcroft), and the defendant Mary Winifred Nicholas (Mr. J. F. W. Dickson and Mr. McLiver), The claim was that, on divers occasions between 1016 and 1924, plaintiff advanced moneys to defendant, who lived with him as his wife. He claimed against the separate estate, and further asked that an order for accounts be made. A counterclaim was filed that, if any money had been loaned (which was denied), it had been used for the purpose of keeping the plaintiff, the defendant, and the child of the parties. That upkeep involved £300 per year, and the period mentioned was from October 30, 1919, to August 17, 1925. Mr. Xorthcroft stated that the position went back 20 years. At that time defendant was a Mrs. Johnson. The parties were then living at Manchester, England. She and plaintiff, whose name was Holton, became friendly, and she told himMhat her husband was illtreating her. Her complaints were so numerous and so persistent that phaintifT, in order to protect her, took a, house, and Mr. and Johnson went to live in it with plaintiff. Eventually plaintiff and defendant left England as .Mr. and Mrs. Holmes. They first went to Australia, and finally came to New Zealand, that being in 1907. Plaintiff had at that time over £1000 in his possession. He qbtained employment with an insurance company. In 1910 plaintiff was transferred to Dunedin as district superintendent for his company, lie was later appointed to a similar position in Christchurch, and was there until 1910, when 'he left the employ of the company. He and defendant came to Auckland, and it was at this time that his financial affairs became involved. He became ill, and defendant took charge of his financial affairs. After some months she took a drapery business in l'onsonby. It was bought in 1017 for £2000, the payment being made up by taking over a property plaintiff had purchased at Northeote, which was valued at £1050. The balance of the £2000 was supplied by plaintiff out of his own savings. Towards the end of 1917 plaintiff's health improved, and he resumed work with another insurance company. He had to sell the property and at times pay the whole of his salary to the National Bank to reduce his overdraft. In 1918 defendant was ill, and gave plaintiff an acknowledgment of her indebtedness to plaintiff for £2000. la 1921 he had to leave town on business, and then it was that he had reason to doubt Mrs. Johnson. He taxed her, and she admited that there was another man. About September, 1924, she married a man named Nicholas. His Honor: Is her previous husband dead? Mr. Northcroft intimated that h.e did not know. Before the marriage defendant refused to grant plaintiff access to the Bhop in Ponsonby. She had in. her hands a substantial sum of money that ho had given her. Defendant believed that it was a sinister plan .by Nicholas. Mr. Dickson: I object to that. Mr. Northcroft pointed out that plaintiff contributed a large sum of money •to the business, and defendant had repudiated him as a husband, and had married another man. Robert Richard Holmes, plaintiff, stated that his correct name in England had been Richard Holdon. His evidence was on the same lines as Mr. Northcroft's opening. To Mr. Dickson: When you were ill your "wife" kept you! Witness: I beg your pardon ? Mr. Dickson: Don't beg my pardon, answer my question. Witness: She had no money. Witness said he waa abnormal owing to his illness when he signed up for the purchase of the business in Ponsonby. To his Honor: I took it that the business was for the benefit of my "wife," the child, and myself, and if she had continued living with mc things would have gone on as before. To Mr. Dickson: I have never given a thought to any other woman since I met Mrs. Nicholas, and if she were free I would marry her to-morrow. I deny that I threatened to leave her and marry another woman. This closed the case for the plaintiff. His Honor said it was a question whether or not it was a partnership, and if so defendant was entitled to costs for looking after the business and maintaining the child. If the business were not successful that would be taken into •consideration when taking accounts. The case is proceeding.