HUSBAND'S CLAIM SUCCEEDS

Evening Star, Issue 19517, 26 March 1927, Page 6

HUSBAND'S CLAIM SUCCEEDS

mmsm m frihsle case STMSTUKS OH CHRISTCHURCH WITNESSES , The decision of His Honor Mr Justice Reed in tbs cnee of Andrew Pringle (plaintiff) v Ivy Pringle (defendant) reached Dunddin this morning from the north. The plaintiff claimed £I,OOO in money, the value of certain furniture, a piano, the trotting horse Jazalock, a quantity of trotting gear, and a diamond ring valued at ,£s(l. He also asked that account be taken, as lu claimed that defendant wrongfully converted to her own use moneys of his.

At the hearing of the case Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for the plaintiff rnd Mr A. G. Neill for the defendant.

“ The plaintiff and defendant aw husband and wife,” said His Honor. “ From May, 1920, until May. 1921, tbo plaintiff was the licensse of tin Empire Hotel, Dunedin. He sold out, and in September, 1921,. became license* of the Railway Hotel, Christchurch. In 1923, whilst ho was still in occupation of that hotel, it was burnt down. During the course of re-erection ho carried on with a temporary bar. On Maj 15, 1924, ho became seriously ill, and he gave an _ authority to his wife to operate on his banking account, and to obtain a permit to carry on the licensed premises. On August 1, 1924, he waa committed to a mental hospital, and the Public Trustee, by virtue of the Mental Defectives Act, 1911, became administrator of bis estate. The wife purported to account to the Public Trustee for the estate of the husband in her hands. She was permitted to continue for a time to carry on the licensed premises The husband was considered to he incurably insane, but recovered, and was discharged in November, 1925. He wont to reside with his wife, who had taken over th< Victoria Hotel in Dunedin. Ho discovered that any estate he had wher lie wont to the mental hospital had gone, and that he was penniless. H« obtained a statement from the Public Trustee which sufficiently accounted tor the moneys that had come to that officer. Included in that statement, however, was a payment to the wife ot £I,OOO which had been paid to her upon evidence that at .the time satisfied the Public Trustee that it was money owing to her by her husband. The husband denies that he owed his wife anything. Ho has ascertained that his wife has realised and taken possession of the proceeds of certain chattel property, the existence of which was unknown to the Public Trustee. - This included a trotting horse, Jazalock. He fruitlessly endeavored to obtain satisfaction from bis wife, and then commenced these proceedings.’’ His Honor pointed out that the defendant denied the material allegations in the" statement of claim. She claimed that the £I,OOO was lent from her own moneys to the plaintiff, she admitted tlio sale of Jazalock and the trotting gear, and that she must account to tho plaintiff for the proceeds thereof, but she counter-claimed for £270 for tho maintenance and education of the three children of the marriage during the absence of the plaintiff in the mental hospital. His Honor stated that accounts had been taken, and went on to deal with the report of the registrar on- the accounts. After dealing at length with the evidence and passing severe strictures on a statement made by Mr A. O. Hullett, of Christchurch, whose evidence ho classed as absolutely unreliable, His Honor went on to sayi “I find that the £I,OOO was obtained from the Public Trustee upon fals< evidence. I have already credited Mn Pringle with the £SOO part of thii £I,OOO. I have also found that the £l5O was never given to her husband or used on his behalf, and upon tho evidence that I have already analysed L find that neither of the sums of £2OO ever reached tho husband or was used on b’s behalf. Jt follows that Mrs Pringle must be held liable to refund this £I,OOO. “As regards •* sale of Jazalock and certain sulkies and harness, Mrs Pringle admits to having received and appropriated tho proceeds to her own use.' These chattels were sold without the knowledge ot the Public Trustee that they formed part of the estate, 'ihis represents a sum of £239, and r, is must bo refunded. As regards tho diamond ring, i think this was probably a gift to tho wifo by her husbauu, ami I BO hold. As regards tho piano and certain other furniture. I am not prepared to make any order. “There remains the question of the counter claim. Airs Pringle claims for the maintenance and support of the children. A wile is entitled to her husband’s credit for necessaries and that would include the maintenance and support of herself and children. If instead of pledging his credit she pays for such necessaries out of moneys of his in her hands and she is afterwards called upon to account, I think sho is entitled to be credited in such accounting with moneys so expended in necessaries. In this case, therefore, I think a reasonable sum must he allowed for the maintenance of the children; she claims nothing for herself. Tho claim is at the rate of £2 per week from December 13, 1924, to November 4, 1926, and a sum of £73 paid lor the board and lodging of the eldest son. I do not think this is unreasonable, and the £270 claimed will be allowed.

•‘The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from the defendant the sums of £B2O, £I,OOO, and £239, or in all the sum of £2.059, less £270. “Judgment will ho tor the plaintiff for the sura of £1,789, with costs according to scale, witnesses’ espouses and disbursements and interlocutory matters to bo settled by the Registrar. I certify for three extra days of trial at £ls 15s per day, including in this an allowance for taking of accounts. I allow the defendant £l2 12s costs and filing fees upon the counter-claim.”