COLLETT V. COLLETT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XVIII, Issue 1895, 1 December 1923, Page 5

COLLETT V. COLLETT.

HUSBAND REMOVES PROPERTY. RESTITUTION ORDERED. Following on a recent unusual maintenance case, in which W. H. Collett, farmer, Mokaujti, unsuccessfully claimed maintenance from his wife, Nellie Collett, on the ground that he was a destitute person, the former sought recovery of chattels to the value of £126 10s, allegedly wrongfully removed from her property by Collett. She also claimed £SO general damage. After hearing evidence, the magistrate (Mr F. W. Platts, S.M.) reserved his decision, which is now to hand. GOODS HURRIEDLY SOLD. In an exhaustive review of the evidence, Mr Platts states that after a separation order had been obtained by plaintiff in September last, it was arranged that Collett should remove from his wife’s farm at Mokauiti, where the parties had been living, his own personal belongings. He took advantage of this arrangement to take as much of the stock, implements, etc., as he conveniently could at the time, and his disposal, including a month’s supply of provisions, ordered by his wife. The defendant then hurriedly sold a good deal of the removed property, at bargain prices, to various neighbours, including N. McGregor, Junr., G. Santo, and Austin Hose, who are accordingly joined as co-de-fendants to the extent of their respective purchases. FALSIFIED EVIDENCE. Dealing first with Mrs Collett’s claim against her husband, the evidence showed, that the farm had been her property for some years, and much of the stock, etc., was bought from the farm earnings, and such stock was clearly her property. Where there was any doubt about the ownership of the chattels claimed, there was a simple test that solved the difficulty in most cases. The defendant had been adjudicated a bankrupt in 1916, when he had sworn to the official assignee that his wife owned the farm and all the stock *nnd chattels thereon, and that he possessed no assets whatever. Now he swore that be owned a considerable amount of stock on the farm. The Court could not believe such evidence, which was falsified by previous sworn statements.

Coming to the plaintiff’s claim against the various neighbours, a contention was raised by counsel that the farm had been worked in partnership between defendant and his wife. This could not be upheld in any legal sense; moreover, they were certainly not coowners. As far as the property in this case was concerned, the husband was in the same position to his wife as a complete stranger. She had a complete civil remedy against all persons, including the husband, for damage done to the property. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. He would' find therefore, “that the defendant wrongfully took a portion of his wife’s property, selling some ana retaining the remainder.” Plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the. persons to whom her property was wrongfully sold: against N. McGregor, £2 7s 6d; against G. Santo for £l4 ; against Austin Hose for £l2 10s, all of whom could recover from the defendant, W. H. Collett. There would be judgment against Collett for the delivery of three horses, 1 saddle, 5 sets chains, 1 plough, 4 bridles, 3 windows, 1 bar and swingletree.

There would also be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for £7 10s, the value of the groceries wrongfully taken, and for £2O as general damages, with costs.