RECOVERY OF FURNITURE

Evening Star, Issue 21709, 2 May 1934, Page 11

RECOVERY OF FURNITURE

MAGISTRATE'S COURT CLAW The hearing was resumed yesterday afternoon of the case in which Alice Budge proceeded against her husband, David Budge, in the Magistrate’s Court for the recovery of certain articles of furniture, etc. The plaintiff was represented by Mr J. P. Ward, and Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the defendant. , .. Mr White, opening the defence, said that it was regrettable that the court should have to determine a case with so much minute detail; but the parties had unfortunately reached a stage of domestic discord, accentuated by religious differences. When the trouble arose the defendant 1 gave his_ wife all the furniture that could conceivably be hers by law. _ All the furniture had been insured in his name, and until this claim was made there had never been any suggestion that it was not The defendant, in evidence, said that there were certain articles of furniture which his wife’s mother had given them, but later_ accounts for these articles, amounting to £27 12s, had arrived. Witness believed that he had paid for that furniture. One article, a hall runner, was a replacement, as plaintiff’s mother had taken the original one. The whole of the cutlery claimed by the plaintiff was , bought by witness in 1918. ' Cross-examined, witness said that he denied his wife’s ownership of certain articles because he had had to pay balances on accounts. The Magistrate said that it was not a satisfactory matter to have to iron out a dispute between husband and wife after an irrevocable break in their married lives. After reviewing the evidence His Worship made an order for the return of the majority of the articles mentioned, making exceptions in one or two instances where there was no evidence that the defendant had not paid for the articles concerned. With regard to the cutlery, the plaintiff’s story that it was bought with the proceeds of a presentation made to her by business men when she gave

up her position as a barmaid had the appearance of truth. The defendant, however, denied that, saying that he had bought it all, and there was no evidence to tip the scale one way ,or the other, and the onus was on the plaintiff to prove it, which she had not done. The defendant was therefore entitled to retain the cutlery. The magistrate then adjourned the hearing for one week to enable the goods to be handed over. He intimated also that the question of costs would. then be settled.