UNUSUAL CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLIV, Issue XLIV, 21 May 1924, Page 5

UNUSUAL CASE.

UNFAITHFUL WIFE

HUSBAND SACRIFICES WEALTH

UIY TELEGRAPH —I'BEBS ASSOCIATION.)

GISBORNE, May 20. An unusual case came up in the Magistrate's Court to-day concerning Francis P. Brady, who was Labour candidate for the Kangitikei electorate in 1922. The Rangitikei Motors, Ltd., sought to recover on a judgment summons the sum of £58 19s 6d from Brady.

In evidence Brady said that in 1922 he was a hotelkeeper in the Kangitikei where he incurred the debt sued for. In December of that year he discovered he alleged, that his wife had been unfaithful to him, and after giving her power of attorney over his money and land titles he left for Australia. At that time he was worth between £5000 and £6000. Since then his brother died and he returned to New Zealand, being engaged on a salary and commission basis and earning £6 weekly. Though separated from his wife he voluntarily contributed £3 a week towards the maintenance of his children in Wellington, which left him only £3 for himself. He had debts aggrej gating £150, which he was endeavouring; to pay off. He did not know judgment had been obtained against him till he returned to New Zealand. Some unusual facts were revealed in cross-examination. Defendant said tfcat when he found that his wife had been unfaithful he decided to leave her, altj gave her power of attorney over his money and lands on condition that she paid all his debts. She went to the bank and had these transferred to her own name. There were other amounts owing; to him which he had been unable to collect. For instance his brother (since killed) owed him £1000 but this had been "wiped off When he returned from Australia his wife summoned him for maintenance and guardianship orders in Wellington, but when the magistrate heard the facts and that his wife had £5000 he declined to make an order. Subsequently defendant consented to allow his wife to have the children, and he contributed £3 weekly towards their keep. In answer to a question defendant said his wife still had the money. That was why the magistrate at Wellington ' had refused to make a maintenance order. Defendant said the money originally belonged to his wife who received it from the estate of her ! father, a wealthy sheep farmer down ! Tl anganui way. The £5003 had been ' accumulated by defendant as 5, result of his hotel business and speculation. It i was money he made with her money. In reply to a question, defendant said he paid the Government no gift duty, and counsel contended it was therefore not a gift.

The ease was adjourned sine die.