The Balfour Case.

Mataura Ensign, Issue 358, 6 November 1897, Page 2

The Balfour Case.

THE HOBBS' FAMILY AGAIN. At the Invercargill Court on Thursday, the case Emily Hobbs v. Justus Hobbs", v claim for the return of certain horses, cattle, and farming implements, or tbeir value, £185, was heard. Mr Macalister for plaintiff; Mr Wade for dafendant. Counsel stated that the parties were married seven years ago, and had been liviug at Balfour on a small farm. When married plaintiif had brought with her ;£75 in cash, her savings for many years, and subsequently sold a small property in. Dunedin for which sho realised £36 odd, and with the money the cliattelssucd forhadbocn purchased; that was in addition to the increase of the stock, which also belonged to her. This money had been given to the husband, and he had been authorised to purchase the chattels referred to. Some of them had been bought by him and some by her, but all receipts were in lier name. The plaintiff had also borrowed money upon, the chattels in the years 1894 95 in her own name, with the full knowledge of hor husband, who had acknowledged in the execution of thejast security that sho had an interest therein. Evidence was given by the. plain tiff, B. J. Faitt, Constable McKenzie, and John Macalister, and evidence taken at Gore on plaintiffs behalf was read. Mr Wade for tho defence said that though in some respects the plaintiff's evidence was correct, in other respects it . was very inaccurate ; that though, by the Married Woman's Property Act, ISS4, a married woman's status iii regard to lier husband had been materially altered, tbe circumstances in this case showod that the chattels claimed for we.ro at least as much the property of the husband as the wifo. ' Defendant was a sober, industrious man, ! having been working continuously on the j railway for the last 15 years. The plain- ] tiff had tried to make out that when sho married him defendant and his family were in' extremely destitute circumstances ; but was it likely that a widow with the meuns the plaintiff possessed would have married him if this allegation were correct, neither beh-'g young ? He admitted the demand for the gojds was served on defendant, but did not admit refusal to return them. j The defendant's case was partly heard, the witnesses examined being H. P. Hon- , ricksen and William Rasmussen, and the , further hearing of the case was adjourned until to-day.