FAMILY DISPUTE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 24 October 1924, Page 5

FAMILY DISPUTE

DIFFERENCES AIRED. COURT PROCEEDINGS. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. A claim and counter-claim, in which the interests of father and daughter were diametrically opposed, was heard in the Havvera Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when The Perpetual Executors and Trustees’ Association of Australia, Ltd., claimed £54 8s 9d from Arthur William Skjellerup, who met the claim with a counter-claim for £Bl 16s 9d. Mr. Houston, for the plaintiff company, said his clients were the executors of the will of the late Jessie Skjellerup, who was possessed of a separate estate in. Australia and New Zealand, and the defendant was the' husband of the deceased lady. The plaintiff company were suing fpr the use and occupation of house property in Gladstone Street, Hawera, which was One of the assets in the estate. Mr. O’Dea: ,It is the most extraordinary case I have ever heard of. The husband is being sued for being in his wife’s house. It is,a case that should never have conie before the court. Mr. Houston: I quite agree, but possibly for a different reason. The inclusion of the house in the estate of deceased was not denied, and evidence was produced by the 1 plaintiff company to the effect that the rental value of the house was £2 per week. The defendant’s counter-claim was made up of £59 ; 15s paid by him on behalf of the estate to the second mortgagee, and £22 Is 6d, the proceeds from the sale of two heifers, paid into the banking account of deceased,, • Evidence was given for the plaintiff by the married daughter of defendant, who, Mr. O’Dea said, was “pushing the case,” and for the defendant by . Skjellerup himself and his son. In delivering judgment, the Magistrate said the property in question had been found to be a legal asset of the estate, and the plaintiff company therefore had the right to sue for use and occupation. Judgment would therefore be entered, for. the plaintiff company on the claim for the full amount. £54 8s 9d. In connection with the counterclaim the magistrate said he had not nearly enough material before him to attempt to trace definitely the source of the deposits alleged to have been paid by defendant into the bank at' the time the wife died, or the ownership of all the property. It %as clear, however, that at the time of the wife’s death-the husband and wife-had been living; on the property, which was the family home, the husband jbeirig the breadwinner. The evidence was of his payment of moneys to his wife and payment by the wife’s cheque. The Magistrate said lie was not prepared to say that defendant had been a pauper all the time and everything belonged to his wife. The evidence also showed that the furniture was insured in the husband’s name, and was n °h included in the wife’s pssets at febe 5 time of her death. It seemed to him to be unreasonable to say that , the husband’s interest did not amount to £59. However, on the evidence he not say just what; tin* liusbaiicPs ■nteresfc amounted to, and judgment c ° r the husband on the counter-claim would be for the same amount as on toe claim. Each party was' ordered to nay their own costs.