MATRIMONIAL TANGLE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 70, 23 March 1926, Page 9

MATRIMONIAL TANGLE

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM

WIDOW v. COMMISSION AGENT.

The case in which Henry Maxwell, a commission agent, claimed £07 from Evelyn Cowan, widow, of Wellington, in respect to loans which, he alleged, he had made to Mrs. Cowan, waa continued at the Magistrate's Court today. Dealing with the defendant's counterclaim for £99, which, she said, was due to her for the board of Maxwell, his son, and his daughter for six months, Mr. W. E. Leicester, for the defendants submitted that Maxwell's action arose out of Mrs. Cowan's refusal to marry him. The plaintiff as a business man, must have known what Mrs. Cowan's position was. Defendant had stated that she was always frank-with Maxwell, and she had always said her. income was just sufficient to support herself and her children. "He looked upon her as an investment, but he hasno right to come to Court and ask for a dividend," said Mr. Leicester. It was strange said counsel, that Maxwell did not keep receipts for the amount he was claiming from her. ' ' His daughter is a female Gargantuan," said Mr. Leicester, "and she ate the- defend-, ant. out of house and home. We .submit that Maxwell is really .in Mrs. Cowan'a debt." ...■■•'• ';••. ■ • ■ The defendant gave evidence that she first met Maxwell through a matrimonial agent, and it was. three weeks before she knew he had just secured a divorce. During the. seven months she knew the plaintiff, she: had- been taken out to entertainments only twice. It was absolutely untrue that Maxwell | had spent more than £100 on her; it was more like £5. She- admitted having received £50 from Maxwell, sim-f ply as loans to provide extras for. tho board of himself and his children. I Mr. Leicester: "Was it on the representation that you had money coming to you?"—" No." . "Did you say you had £500 a year?" —"That is absolutely untrue." "Were any arrangements made as to repayment V'-r-" None whatever." Defendant said she had purchased clothing for, his daughter with Maxwell's consent. She had never received any money for board from either Maxwell or his daughter. Maxwell had stayed with her for about twenty weekends, not six week-ends as he alleged, and also one period of ten consecutive days. His daughter was with her from August to Christmas of last year, and the defendant was put to great expense. Maxwell's son was also at her house for a month continuously, and at other times. "Maxwell was always talking about settling-up, but he never did so,", said the defendant; "At the end o' the seven months I told him I could not marry him, but that we could be friends just the same. Maxwell then said if I could not be his wife T could not be his friend. Ho told a friend of his that he would, crush me if it cost him £1000. Up to that time there had bten no mention of repayment of the loans." _ Mr.- A. J. Mazengarb (for' the plaintiff): "You arc a clairvoyant, aren't you?"—"I am a student o.' phychology," • . . "Did you give Maxwoll a reading?" —"Yes, and I wish ho woro hero to say what I told him." Defendant said she had never received a gift of any kind from Maxwell nor payment for the board of himself, son, or daughter. Mr. Mazengarb (reading fro;:. a letter): "You.say in this letter.to Max veil that you have an income of £10 per week?"—"So I did, but only for a very short time. I certainly never said I had £500 a year." (Proceeding.) -