TWENTY YEARS AFTER.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 25, 30 January 1926, Page 11

TWENTY YEARS AFTER.

AN INVOLVED CASE.

CLAIM FOR £6000. RESERVED JUDGMENT DELIVERED. The action taken before his Honor the Chief Justice, Sir Robert. Stout, last month, in which Robert Richard Holmes (Mr. Northcroft) sought to recover the sum of £0068 from Mary Winifred Nicholas (Mr. Dickson and Mr. McLiver), has been brought to a close with the reserved judgment of his Honor. The claim was that on divers occasions between 1910 and 1924 the plaintiff advanced moneys to defendant, who had lived with him for 20 years as his wife. A counter-claim was filed to the effect that any moneys had- been used for the maintenance of defendant and the child. His Honor said: At the conclusion of this case I intimated to the parties that in my opinion it was a case that should be settled between them, and I adjourned the case in the hope that some settlement would be arrived at. No settlement has been arrived at, and I have now to say whether accounts should be taken between the parties. I have first to state that after hearing the plaintiff and defendant I am of opinion that I cannot accept the statements made by the defendant in this action. Wherein she contradicts the statements made by the plaintiff, I accept the plaintiff's testimony against hers. I think that from the manner in which she gave her evidence, and also from a letter written by her to the plaintiff, which shows that she was prepared to go to any length to uphold her position. The defence to the plaintiff's claim may be summarised as follows: First, a denial of the amounts received by the defendant; second, that the amounts given to her were gifts; third, that among the first moneys given she pleads the Statute of Limitations and says that more than six years have elapsed since the moneys were given, and that the plaintiff cannot succeed as to those moneys. She also claims that the transaction was tainted with immorality, and that the moneys were given to her on condition that she remained on as his wife. These were the main defences alleged, as well as that of a general denial. I have stated that where her evidence contradicts that of the plaintiff Ido not accept it. I do not consider she was a witness of truth. In my opinion, however, the accounts are so complicated that the proper course to follow is that requested at the trial, namely, that accounts shall be taken by the registrar. As to the defence that the moneys were given in pursuance of an immoral -contract —-that is, that she was to continue to live with him—l am convinced that there was no such agreement, and that the defence of an immoral agreement fails. I shall therefore order that the accounts be taken by the registrar of the claims made by the plaintiff. As to the claims made by the defendant, that is reserved to her. She does not allege that she paid the plaintiff moneys; but if the plaintiff obtained the payment of any moneys, that can be given in evidence by her as a defence to the plaintiff's claims. I reserve all questions of <osts.