ESTATE GIVEN AWAY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 129, 1 June 1926, Page 13

ESTATE GIVEN AWAY

WOMAN'S BANK SAVINGS

CLAIM BY HUSBAND FAILS,

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, 21st May. His Honour. Mr. Justice Adams heard in the Supreme Court to-day a case in which a husband proceeded against his sister-in-law to recover a gift made to her by his wife shortly'before his wife's death. Charles Bailey, clerk' of' works, of Cash-.tak'-'s Hills, as administrator of the estate of his late wife, Charlotte Ann Bailey, and as one of her creditors on behalf of himself and all the other creditors, sued Fanny Ann Dalton, of Cox street, Ashburton, Mrs: Bailey's sister, for £170 2s sd. This money was to Mrs. Bailey's credit in.the Post Office Savings Bank account at the time of her death on Ist June, 1925, but before she died she made a gift of it to Miss Dalton. The 'statement of claim set out that plaintiff wag administrator of all the estate, effects, and credits of his late wife, who died at Ashburton, and was also a creditor in the estate. It was submitted that the plaintiff's .wife had resided with her sister for some time prior to her death. His wife had an account at the Post Office Savings Bank at Ashburton, and the money deposited there amounted to £170 2s sd. On 28th May 1925, the defendant, under written authority from Mrs. Bailey, and as her agent, drew this amount from the bank. The defendant had not accounted to plaintiff, as administrator in the estate, for this money. As creditor in his wife's estate, plaintiff claimed the money drawn by the defendant. In an alternative cause of action, the statement of claim submitted that the plaintiff's wife had made an absolute gift .to the defendant of £170 2s sd, which was the only asset of any kind possessed by Mrs. Bailey at the time of her death. . The plaintiff's wife was indebted to Dr. J. Restall Thomas, of-Christ-church, and Barnett and Co., chemists, of Christchurch. The burial expenses had been paid by the plaintiff under an order of the Magistrate's Court. The plaintiff, who had been living apart from his wife, was paying her £3 a week in respect of a maintenance order. Through having given £170 2s 5d to the defendant the plaintiffs wife left no assets available for the payment of debts and funeral expenses. The plaintiff contended that the gift was made to the defendant on the understanding that she pay the funeral expenses, but these had not been paid. It was asked that the defendant be ordered to give a fully accurate and bona fide account of what she had done with the money received from/plaintiff's wife, and that the gift be made void. The defence was a denial that the plaintiff was a creditor in the estate or that there were any other creditors of the deceased at the time of Mrs. Bailey's death. Defendant admitted that the plaintiff's wife had made an absolute gift of £170 2s sd, but this money was not the only asset possessed by deceased. It was also admitted that the plaintiff paid the burial expenses, but the defendant held that the plaintiff took the liability for such expense. The gift was not made under any conditions. Fanny Ann Dalton said that she kept a boardmg-house. She withdrew the money from the savings bank six days before her sister's death. The latter had told her that she had made up her mind to give all the money away and to leave no estate, and that her intention was to give witness the £170 to repay her for what she had done for Mrs. Bailey when she was ill. Her sister (the deceased) directed that £100 should be paid to their brother, who had a mortgage over witness s house, and £30 to another sister. Mr- MCarthy submitted for the plaintiff that it was not competent for any married person to get rid of the whole estate prior to death, and thus cast upon thf> other relative the duty of burial. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs.