CLAIM FOR MONEY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 8 December 1925, Page 5

CLAIM FOR MONEY.

INTERESTING AUCKLAND CASE. LOANS OR GIFTS. (IIY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, Dec. 7. In the Supreme Court, R-oberi; Richard Holmes, an insurance agent, claimed £6068 from Mary Winifred Nicholas, on the grounds that, between 1916 and 1924 the plaintiff advanced moneys to defendant, who lived with him as his wife. A counter-claim was filed that if any money had been loaned, which was denied, it had been used for keeping the plaintiff, defendant and a child of the pair : that the upkeep involved £SOO per year, and that the period mentioned was from October 30, i 919, to August 17, 1925. Mr N-orthcroft, for the plaintiff, stated that twenty years ago the parties left England as Mr and Mrs Holmes, plaintiff having taken defendant under his protection because she said her husband was ill-treating her. Plaintiff at that time had about £7OOO. They went to Australia, and then came to New Zeaiaiul, where the plaintiff became district superintendent- in Dunedin for an insurance company. Later he held a simi'ar position in Christchurch until 1916, when the parties came to Auckland. He became ill, and defendant took charge of his financial affairs. He became suspicious of her conduct, and she admitted there was another man. .About September, 1924, she married a man named Nicholls. • She had entered into a business in which palintiff had a considerab’e sum of money, and she had repudiated- him as her husband.

The plaintiff, in evidence, said the defendant sought his aid because Johnstone, her husband, ill-treated her, and she was receiving on'y 25s a week to keep the family. Johnstone was consumptive. When Nicholas came on the scene the defendant said she was sorry for the plaintiff, as she did not knovv wnether she wanted him or Nicholas.

In reply to Mr Dickson (for the defendant), the plaintiff said he now had about £2OOO in cash, as well as pro>.rtv in Christchurch. The defendant had always promised to marry when she received advice of her husband’s death.

Mr Dickson suggested that the Christchurch property had been bought- in the defendant’s name in order to provide for the expected child. The plaintiff denied that the property was a gift, and said he had temporarily placed it in defendant’s name in order that she would be provided for in the event of his sudden death. When a drapery business was bbujsht in Ponsonby there was about £IOOO worth of stock. . This had improved to over £6OOO in value, as the result of the use of plaintiff’s earnings.

Mr Dickson said that the defendant had drawn up a wi'l when she was in a hospital. The plaintiff denied this, and said the defendant had never made a will to his ltnowlege. To His Honor, the plaintiff said there would have been an ultimate marriage, and the money in the business wou'd have been their joint property. He had always trusted his ‘“"wife.” , * To Air Dickson : “I have never threatened to marry anyone. If Mrs Nicholas was free to-day I would -marry her.”

His Honor said the onus was on the defendant to prove that the moneys were gifts. Otherwise the matter .should be treated as a partnership, and then the defendant would he entitled to obtain wages for her management of tlio business.

Mr Dickson submitted that the plaintiff had broken up the defendant’s home in England and deserved no- consideration.

His Honor: “I cannot punish him. If his conduct was had; what about her conduct ?” Afr Dickson contended that the Northcote property had becom© defendant’s property, as it was exchanged For the Christchurch gift. The p'ain-t-iff 'had now over £4OOO.

His Honor: “Are you asking me to giv* judgment against a man because he has. money in the bank?” Mr Dickson said the plaintiff had received what he was entitled to. Recently the plaintiff had been so cruel to the defendant that she had attempted to commit suicide. The defendant hod no*- tn veil an acknowledgment of the debt to the plaintiff. Counsel produced the defendant’s will. Th defendant, in evidence, said she

••as 19 years of ape when she came to Now Zealand with the nalintiff. The property in Christchurch had been a "•■ft t.o her tc provide for the child. Any monev received by her was a, gift. The Plaintiff had not offered to marry her, but used to refer to other women -h-ni he could marry. She had met Nicholas, who was a tailor and who lest his wife through illness, three years ago.

To t T: s Honor the defendant said she married Johnstone when she was 15 years old. Phe was an orphan, and was married without anybody’s consent. Her ape was given to the registrar as 9i S'p heard of Johnstone’s death about fou" years ago, and told Holmes. All Dickson submitted that as the relationships lie tween the parties were •ramo.-a' 'lie alleged contract was not enforceable. The case was adjourned until to-mor-row. •