SQUANDERED FORTUNE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 260, 16 October 1933, Page 5

SQUANDERED FORTUNE

■WIFE’S EXTRAVAGANCE. MR E. A. EDOLS’S ESTATE. SYDNEY, Oct. 5. Another chapter was written this week in the amazing drama associated with the squanderings of Mrs Aimeo Edols, the Sydney society woman who has been in prison for nearly two years on account of her refusal to disclose details of her financial dealings before she became bankrupt. Mrs Edols has prepared one statement for the Court, but it was not sufficient to secure her discharge. She will be before the Judge in Bankruptcy again very soon, and the registrar will present a report covering his investigations. In the meantime her husband, Ernest Augustus Edols, once a wealthy grazier and station owner, has been declared bankrupt, and on Tuesday, before a hushed Court, Mr Edols eplained haw his wife had, in a few years ‘‘dissipated the whole of his fortune of £35,000.” With a considerable display of emotion Mr Edols added: ‘‘Today I haven’t got a penny.” jt was admitted by Mr Edols that during the time his wife was a fugitive from justice—she was hiding in Sydney and Melbourne for many months —ho received an envelope containing £340. That was from Mrs Edols and was part of £470 he had received from her just before her arrest. lie spent the whole of the amount, but he did not know that he was doing wrong when ho accepted it. It was because of this action that he was made bankrupt by the official receiver. To-day ho was living on £2 a week which was sent to him by his sisters. Mr Edols said that bo advanced to his wife £20,000, and ho was alway s

under the impression that that sum bad been invested on his behalf. He explained that when his father died be and his brothers and sisters inherited a valuable station property, and he sold his interest in that property for £35,000. The whole of that had been squandered by his wife. When he retired and came to live in Sydney he had an annual income of between £2OOO and £3OOO u year. Now lie had nothing. In 1931, said Mr Edols, h<- gave his wife £ll,OOO to purchase shares. His wife afterwards sold the shares and left him with nothing. When he asked his wife what had become of the shares she admitted that she bad sold them and assured him that she had ivted for the best. He had a life insurance policy for £lOOO. This he transferred to a Mrs Vivers, from whom his wife had borrowed money. Mrs Vivers later sold the policy. As ho hud said before, he had nothing left. The examination was declared con eluded.