Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.





[by telegraph.— correspondent.] Gisborne, Friday. At the last sitting of the Supreme Court a case with some extraordinary features was heard concerning a claim to recover a box containing jewellery valued at £136, lodged with the Bank of New South Wales, Some years ago, assorted the plaintiff, Mabel Meredith Ewers (formerly Desbarres), the jewellery, which comprised a number of diamond brooches, rings, and pendants, was lodged by her former husband (Desbarres) with the bank as security for an overdraft which Frederick Hall had guaranteed for him at tho bank. This, sho claimed, was done without her knowledge or consent. Tho money was advanced by the bank to Desbarres, Hall's guarantee, and, as Hall had since paid the amount, together with certain sums for interest, ho claimed that ho had a right to tho jewellery which had been made available as security. Hall, the defendant in the action, relied upon this right as an answer to the plaintiff's claim. Mr. Justice Hosking, in his judgment delivered to-day, nonsuiting plaintiff, said the right of Debarrcs to deal with the jewellery in any capacity was expressly denied by the plaintiff, and ho found on tho evidence that there was no authority in existence, and none professed. But the history, of what occurred subsequent to the pledgo showed that the acts and conduct of plaintiff were consistent only with the position that, as between herself and tho defendant, he' was entitled to hold the jewellery as security until the amount guaranteed was paid off. That sho should have taken up this attitudo at the outset is not surprising, said His Honor, for if she had then repudiated her husband's act he would have been exposed to a criminal prosecution in respect thereof. To any reasonable man, her acts and conduct could only imply that she acknowledged that the pledge was binding upon her. Desbarres had left New Zealand in 1910, and had not returned. Proceedings against him wero (hereby rendered more difficult and expensive. In 1912 the plaintiff obtained a divorce from Desbarres. Thereby the pressure upon which the defendant might count as arising from tho relationship of husband and wife, and the chance, much relied upon, of Desbarres relatives providing the money, altogether disappeared, and the defendant lost the means of retrieving his position.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

WOMAN'S JEWELLERY., New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15604, 9 May 1914

Word Count

WOMAN'S JEWELLERY. New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15604, 9 May 1914