SUED HIS WIFE.

Grey River Argus, 26 April 1929, Page 3

SUED HIS WIFE.

Bookmaker's Claims. WELLINGTON', April 24,. . An extraordinary case is being heard before Judge MacGregor, to-day, in which Richard Coxon is suing his wife for the recovery of, or an order, declaring, the sum of £lOOO is his property. Mr Leicester, for plaintiff, frankly stated that k Coxon had been carrying on business as a bookmaker, and to minimise the apparent size of his operations paid money into his wife’s account in the Post Office Savings Bank, and later deposited £lOOO in the Union Bank in the defendant’s name; £l7O belonged to defendant, but plaintiff cleared himself of this indebtedness. A disagreement arose between the parties, and plaintiff took steps to see if the defendant was prepared to give an acknowledgment that the m ney belonged to plaintiff. The result was that the money was re-deposited for a further term of two years for the reason plaintiff considered it desirable to delay action against his wife, in ease it disclosed his bookmaking operations. At that time, said counsel, Coxon had nol been convicted, but had since been prosecuted twice and fined. In December, a claim was made on the bank for £lOOO and the present proceedings were instituted. NON-SUIT ASKED FOR. WELLINGTON, April 24. The defence denies thVw allegations as to purpose of account, contends the money was part of de fendant’s separate estaie It is also claimed that it was obtained partly by keeping boarders and partly as gifts from the plaintiff in. recognition of defendant’s services in conduct iof business.

It wla« 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 whether plaintiff could proceed against his wife except by way of i&mmary pocedure under the Married Women’s Property Act, and .objection was noted. Plaintiff gave evidence, and Mr A. C. Mazengarb for the wife, asked for a non-suit on the grounds that plaintiff could not set up fraudulent. intent, and had not rebutted the presumption that thfJ money wfas a gift to his wife. (Proceeding.)