SAVING FOR WEDDING.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 88, 14 April 1927, Page 15

SAVING FOR WEDDING.

MAN MARRIES ANOTHER GIRL

SUES HIS MOTHER FOR MONEY

JUDGMENT OBTAINED.

I*.t Telecrapn.—Own Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, this day.

Mr. E. Page, S.M., gave reserved judgment yesterday in the case in which Thomas Samuel Harvey claimed from Joseph Dooley, his stepfather, the amount of £79 0/4, alleging that it was transferred to Dooley because of fear of a breach of promise action.

Both parties are waterside workers

Plaintiff's story was that in addition to paying board he handed to his mother each week a sum which she banked for him.

The defence contended that Harvey paid nothing besides his board, and that the money in the savings bank had been pnt there by his mother as a fund with which he was eventually to go to England and marry a Liverpool girl, with whom he had an understanding. The whole £70. it was asserted, had been paid by Mrs. Dooley out of her housekeeping money. Against his mother"s will, however, plaintiff married a Wellington girl who, it had been thought, would take action against him for breach of promise to marry. Accordingly Dooley refused to pay over the money to his stepson.

The magistrate said that on his arrival in New Zealand plaintiff! informed his mother that if he had money he would have married the Liverpool girl. Mrs. Dooley told him that it* he would stay with her two years she would try to save f 100, so that he might go Home and be married, and get a small bungalow and furnish it. She advised him of the necessary procedure to open a savings bank account, which was opened in September, 1924. by plaintiff n his own name. From that date until recently Mrs. Dooley had retained possession of the bank book, and throughout the period of over two years had paid in various sums, until the amount in credit in October, 1926, was £79. On October 19, 1920, proceedings for an order of affiliation were issued against plaintiff, and later an order by consent, adjudging him the father of an unborn child, was made. There was a further order requiring him to enter into a bond of £50, with a surety for due compliance with any order for maintenance that might subsequently ba made. Defendant became surety. It was at this time believed by defendant and his wife that the girl contemplated bringing an action for breach of promise, and it was suggested that plaintiff should withdraw the money and hand it to his parents, or one of them, so that in the event of an action being instituted the girl would not be able to reach the money. Plaintiff withdrew the money and handed it over. The mother at this time believed the son was about to go to England to marry the Liverpool girl, and £37 was added to the £79 to make the amount required to pay his passage and give him a start in life. Plaintiff did not go Home, but against the wishes of

his mother married the girl in Well ington. He had since demanded repay ment of £79, but it was refused.

After mentioning the conflict of evidence, as given by the parties regarding the ownership of the money, Mr. Page said he had come to the conclusion that the parties contemplated and intended, as money was paid in from time to time, that it should be plaintiff's money. He thought the purport of withdrawing it was to prevent the girl from reaching it, and that plaintiff, when handing it over, did not part with ownership, and that defendant received it as trustee or agent.

Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount, with costs.