BOOKIE'S TROUBLES

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 10880, 26 April 1929, Page 4

BOOKIE'S TROUBLES

DEPOSITED MONEY LX AYIFE’S NAME.

WOMAN DISPUTES OWNERSHIP

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT.

MONEY OTARS' TO CONCEAL bookmaking PH OH LS.

(I’resß Association.! • WELLINGTON, April; 24. An extraordinary-case is-' being heard before Mr Justice MacGregor to-day in which ■ .Richard Coxon ; .tef suing his wife for the recovers of an order declaring a sum of £IOOO to ha Ins property. Mr W. E. Leicester, for the plaintiff, frankly stated that Coxon had been carrying on business as a, bookmaker, and to minimise the apparent size of his operations paid the money into his wife s account in the Pont Office Savings Bank, and later deposited £IOOO in the "Union Bank m the defendant’s name A sum or €l7O belonged to the defendant, but the plaintiff cleared himself of this indebtedness. 4 A disagreement aros* between the parties, and the plaintiff' took steps to see. if defendant was prepared to give an acknowledgment that the money belonged to the plaintiff. The result was that the money. Was re-deposited for a further . term of two years for the reason that the plaintiff' considered it desirable to delay action against his wife in case it disclosed his bookrnaking operations. At that time Coxon had not* been convicted, hut lie had since been prosecuted twice, and fined. In December a claim was made on the bank for the £IOOO, arid proceedings were instituted. The defence denies the allegations, as to the purpose of the account, and contends that the money was part ol defendant’s separate estate; and also (Maimed that it was obtained partly by keeping hoarders and partly as gifts from the plaintiff in recognition of defendant’s services in the conduct of the business. It was further submitted that even if the money was given on trust, the trust was for' an improper and unlawful purpose, and could not be enforced. The question was raised as to whether the plaintiff could proceed against 'his.' wife, except by \%ay of summary procedure under the Married Woman’s Property Act. and the objection was noted. The plaintiff gave evidence, and M r 0. Mazengarb,. for the wife, asked for a nonsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff could not set up fraudulent intent, and had not rebutted the presumption that the money was a gift to the wife. Judgment was given in favor of defendant. “I am satisfied.” said the judge, ‘-this Court should not interfere and should not assist the plaintiff in carrying out an unlawful agreement. It is equally clear it is open to the defendant to set up the unlawful agreement as a defence, indeed if it is not contended, it is the duty of the Court to -set tip the defence.

•Costs were given to defendant on t lie lowest scale.

“The sum was given," stated the •Judge, “by plaintiff to liis wife in order to conceal the amount he was making bockmaking."