DISTRICT COURT, HAWERA

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 2524, 6 September 1893, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT, HAWERA

IN BE FAIRS 1 BANKRUPTCY,

Tuesday, September sth, 1893. His Honor Judge Kettle haß given the following jndgment:— l am of opinion that the Assignee was right in 1 ejecting Mrs Fairs' proof and that this motion to review the Assignee's decipion must be dismissed. The facts are very similar to tbOße in the case 0! Gardner v. Gardner, 28 L. J. Chancery, 903. Mrs Paira received the £1000 (whioh was bequeathed to her for her sole and separate use) in October, 1891, and immediately handed it to her husband, tbe bankrupt, unreservedly, to be applied for the common benefit of himself, his wife, And children, in sueb manner as Mr Faire ihould think best. Mr Fairs afterwards, with the knowledge and assent of his wife, used the monoy partly in purohafjing a business at Hawera, whioh he earned on close up to the date ot his bankruptcy, and partly in expenditure for tbe beuefit of the family. Under tbese ciroumstancea I am of opinion that Mrs Fairs cannoL now claim against her husband or bis estate. In the oase to whiob I have referred, Vioe- Chancellor Stuart held (I quote from tbe report of the cbbo) •• that although in this case there was no evidence to Bbow the oiroumstanceß under wbiob tbe money (a legacy of £1000 > given to Mrs Gardner for her separate was paid to the husband's banker?, nor any proof of any formal assent on tbe part of the wife, or of any gilt of the fund to her husband, yet her aßsent 10 the employment and expenditure of the raoasv by tbe husband in the manner men.^a. < in the Bpecial case must be presumed, &_« that she could not now be allowed to claim it back as if still affected by tbe trust for her separate use. He observed that tbe case was one not of gift to the bußband, but it was one in which tho

haßband, holding the money upon trues for the wife, or as she should diteot, employed it for the most E&tt in purposes for their coratnon enefit ; and the question waa, whether, after ail that had been done with tbe knowledge and' assent of tbe wife, . - ~y (x> recover tbe money from tbe but t- .. estate just aa if it had remained - i^ 1 * hands without any act oi hers to j-r -*:\ ' e*ha to the trust for her separate use. Hia opinion was that tbe assent of the v/ife to the employment of the money by tbe husband partly in his bnsinees and partly in- expenditure for the benefit of tbe family rendered it impossible for the wife, After that assent, to claim tbe money out Of the Resets of the husband." Motion dismissed with costs.