CLAIM AGAINST HUSBAND.

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 143, 16 May 1930, Page 2

CLAIM AGAINST HUSBAND.

WIFE SUES FOR £628. SUPREME COURT ACTION. Civil proceedings to recover morn allegedly loaned to her husband v, ■ brought by Harriet Jane Maskery . . , James, Wellington) before His Ho, the Cfiief Justice, Sir Michael Myr, in the Palmerston North Supie, Court to-day. Defendant, Leona: Maskery, was represented by .V claimed £316 as half t: selling price of a business m the ion.-, names of the parties, and £312 allegedly due to her under a deed of sep.,. plaintiff said that soo. after the marriage they took up their residence at Mangaweka, where defen dant purchased a joinery and undertaker’s business. Witness assisted id the shop. Defendant then enlisted an : sold the house and business, giving tl: money to witness in case he did not return from the war. The money wa, placed to her credit as a recognition or her services in connection with the business. Defendant returned in IJI9 »r,i purchased a dairy farm at Ohau, borrowing £212 from plaintiff to purchasestock He had given an undertaking to return the money as soon as the property was sold. This took place .u weeks later, and though a substantial profit was made, the money borrowed was not returned, said witness, the} then moved to Levin where two sum, of £2O and £76 were withdrawn from plaintiff’s account for furnishing a house. They later removed to Plirnmerton, Levin, Auckland and Palmerston North. Here witness undertook dressmaking, while her husband worked at ICairanga. Plaintiff put all her earnings in her own account- In I. *.* defendant bought a section in Kangitane Street, plaintiff paying a deposit of £55. A house was built by defendant. Sums amounting to £79 10s were drawn from witness’s account for the upkeep of the home, which left her account at a low ebb. It was then pointed out to defendant that he owed witness about £4OO, and witness suggested repayment of some of the amounts borrowed. Thereafter, certain sums were paid into her account by defendant. Between September and February, 1926, her husband was taken ill, and a further £B4 was withdrawn. The house was sold in May, 1928, and shortly afterwards a cake shop business in Cuba Street was bought on a partnership basis, thought plaintili said she wished to have it in her own name. Witness detailed the negotiations between the parties stating that she had not agreed to the suggestion that her money should be refunded from the proceeds. The business was a profitable one, and was worked byplaintiff, who carried out improvements and extensions. All this time her husband had .been working at his trade of a joiner. About July, 1929, it was decided to sell the business, and an agent said he thought it possible to get £IOOO. Defendant had said to his wife: “That will be £SOO for you and £SOO for me.” However, proceeded witness, only £V(HJ had been offered and though plaintiff objected, it was ultimately decided to sell at this figure. When the agreement was signed defendant referred to a letter written to his wife and said he would not give her “a bean” of the money. On November 29, 1929, a deed of separation was entered into, defendant agreeing to pay £312 and give custody of their girl, continued witness. The money had never been paid, nor had her husband paid to her any part of the proceeds of the business. At this stage the court adjourned for luncheon.