WOMAN'S CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 239, 9 October 1935, Page 8

WOMAN'S CLAIM.

TRANSFER OF ESTATE.

FORMER HUSBAND DEFENDS

AUCKLAND HOTELKEEPER

An action to set aside deeds of partnership and agreement made during her married life was brought at the Supreme Court this morning by Elizabeth Maude Aberhart against her former husband, Thomas Edward Tasker, liotelkceper, of Auckland. The plaintiff, who was divorced by her husband in 10.14 on the ground of habitual drunkenness, alleged that she had been induced by fraud, duress, undue influence and while under the influence of liquor, to transfer her estate to her husband. Mr. Justice Callan presided. Mr. Hall Skelton appeared for the plaintiff and Messrs. Towle and H. J. Butler for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that the parties were married in 1022, the plaintiff, who was then a widow, being owner of the Tapu Hotel, Thames It was contended that at the time of tne marriage the defendant had no asset--, but shortly afterwards bought a farm at Turua, Thames, by taking over the three mortgages on it. In 102.5 plaintiff sold the Tapu Hotel for £6500 and bought the Junction Hotel at Kawakavva. In 1025 she sold that hotel tor £10,000. the price being satisfied by the purchaser taking over an existing niort(rarru of £1100 and by giving a second mortgage of £0000 and the balance in cash.° In 1028, continued the statement of claim, plaintiff purchased a house in Campbell Road for £1250 and was induced by the defendant to take a transfer in his name. In 1028 she purchased the Alexandra Hotel, Parnell, with stock and furniture, for £14,000. To finance this deal she raised £7000 on second mortgage and took over the existing mortgage of £0125, paying the balancc in cash. Payment for Hotel. The statement continued that plaintiff paid exclusively for the hotel, and that defendant did not contribute any money. For the alleged purpose of convenience on completion of the deal defendant induced the plaintiff to take the transfer in their joint names in equal shares. In January, 1034, the statement alleged, the defendant fraudulently and under or by duress by himself or his agents induced her to sign a deed of partnership giving the defendant a half interest in all her separate estate and giving the defendant sole right to operate on her banking account. At the time she signed the deed of partnership she was so under the influence of liquor, and for a long period had been induced by the conduct of defendant to drink, that she did not realise what she was doing. In August, 1034, the plaintiff, allegedly by fraud and under duress or undue influence by the defendant, his servants or agents, was induced to sign a deed of arrangement whereby she transferred to the defendant all her legal rights and interest in the Alexander Hotel and her interest in the mortgage of £4400 over the Junction Hotel, Kawakawa. At the time she signed that deed she was so under the influence of liquor and in such bad health that she did not understand the nature of the transaction, a fact which (he defendant knew or ought to have known. Plaintiff's Alternative Claims. Plaintiff prayed flint the deed of partnership and the deed of arrangement he set aside and that the Alexandra Hotel and the mortgage on the hotel at Kawakawa be retransferred to her. Further plaintiff sought judgment for £"00, the amount of a mortgage raised by defendant oil the Campbell Koad property, and asked that defendant be ordered to account for mesne profits of the Alexandra Hotel from January, 1034, until the date of judgment. Alternatively plaintiff claimed judgment for £8000 damages, being the value of the plaintiff's seporatc estate. Allegations Denied. The defence is a denial of the allegations made by the plaintiff. It is contended that defendant put money into the various properties and that the Alexandra Hotel was purchased in their joint names and financed by money belonging to them both. Further, it is contended that the deed of partnership in 1034 set out the true position as it then existed between them and was used as the basis of a financial settlement which took place in August, 1034, when negotiations for divorce were proceeding. (Proceeding.)