AN UNUSUAL CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue LXVIII, 20 June 1912, Page 8

AN UNUSUAL CASE.

BT TELEGRAPH— PEERS ASSOCIATION AUCKLAND, June 19. A somewhat unusual case came before Mr Kettle in the Magistrate's CJourt this morning. The case was one ia which a married man, Charles M. W. Holmstrom, *a mariner, sought to recover from Johnston and Company, a firm of second-hand dealers, the sum of £85, being the value of furniture purchased by that firm without his permission. The Magistrate remarked that this was an important case, as affecting the. interests of married men yrho have to go to sea or away elsewhere and leave their homes- Plaintiff, in . the course of his evidence, said that lie had been married for five years. About March last he found that they were getting into debt. He had been wi the habit of allowing £15 per month to his wife for housekeeping expenses, and when he asked her to account to him for certain expenditures, she refused point blank to do so. Ultimately, in order to get over their financial difficulties, they decided to let the house furJiished, and both go to work for six ■months, at the end of which period they agreed to come together again. The furniture in the house was insured in plaintiff's name. After making this agreement with his wife, the plaintiff went away on a trip. Returning to Auckland at a later date, he found that his home had been broken up, and that l«s wife and the furniture had gone. He earned £17 per month, and gave his wife £15. The defendant, a second-hand furniture dealer, went into the box and stated that a man rained Douglas called to see him, and asked him to see Mrs Holmstrom about buying some furniture. Witness went and valued the furniture, ultimately buying it for £20. In reply to Mr Kettle, witness said it had not occurred to him that the frushand should have any say in the ■breaking up of the home." He expected tiO'get 30 per cent, on second-hand furniture when re-selling. Cross-examined by Mr Black (who appeared for plaintiff), witness admitted that Captain Holmstrom had called to ■warn him not to sell the furniture. Witness had refused to give the goods back, and had shown plaintiff Mrs HolmStrom's receipt for the sale. The defendant's clerk gave evidence that some of the furniture was originally pi-chased by Mrs Holmstrom. Violet Holmsfcrom, wife of the plaintiff, was called as a witness by Mr Dawson (solicitor for the defendant). "She stated that she had purchased furniture from the defendant on the time payment system. Under cross-examination, witness admitted having written, "I have no money at present. I must feed my children and pay rent." Later she also wrote, "On May 4 I shall receive a large .sum of money." Mr Kettle: "Where did you expect to get it from? Witness: Mr Douglas. Mr Kettle: Is he a relative? Witness: No; it was money I lent him for board and lodging. He went away without paying. Mr Kettle: Where is this man Douglas? n Witness: He went south about three weeks ago. In answer to Mr Dawson, witness -ui|id she thought the furniture was her -own, having bousrht it in her name Mr Kettle: Why did you give Doin*Jas your husband's hard-earned money -■ W-tness: I don't know. He asked me. and represented himself as a remittance man. Mr Kettle: A man who will board with a married woman, pay nothing and get her husband's hard-earned money enn only be characterised by one ■word, "blackguard." To witness : Don't yon regret all this ? Witness: I do. Mr Kettle said this was n cose that ought to be settled. He asked: "You admit your husband is a good one?" Witness: Yes; I do. Mr Kettle: And he has been good to you? Witness: Yes: he hns. The case was then adiourned si"« <lie\ ■Mr Kettle expressing the hope that it might be settled.