AN UNUSUAL LAWSUIT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19195, 8 December 1925, Page 11

AN UNUSUAL LAWSUIT.

ACTION TO RECOVER £69 SB. MONEY ADVANCED TO "WIFE/' TWENTY YEARS' ASSOCIATION. PONSONBY DRAPERY BUSINESS. TTnnsual circumstances were disclosed in the Supreme Court yesterday in an action by Robert Richard Holmes, insurance agent {Mr. Northeroft), against Mary Winifred Nicholas (Mr. Dickson and Mr. McLiver) for £6063 as money advanced when the parties were living together as man and wife. Alternatively plaintiff sought an order directing that accounts should be taken concerning defendant's drapery business. Defendant counterclaimed for maintenance for six years for herself and child at the rate of £SOO a year. Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, was on the. bench. Mr. Northeroft said the parties became acquainted in Manchester, England, 20 years ago. Plaintiff, then a widower, was known bv his correct name of Richard Holton. Defendant, then Winifred Hobbs, was unmarried. Subsequently she married James Johnstone and soon complained to —plaintiff that she was unhappy. She. enlisted his sympathy to such an extent - that he agreed to purchase a house and allow her and Johnstone to live with him. This was in order that plaintiff would be able no protect defendant from her husband's alleged brutalities. Later plaintiff and defendant agreed to desert Johnstone. They left him with a three-year-old child. Defendant was desparately alarmed that her husband might pursue them and that a tragedy would ensue. As ,She professed - the greatest fear they left for New Zealnad in 1907. New Zealand Properties. Plaintiff obtained employment as an insurance canvasser in Wellington, and deposited his savings of £IOOO in the bank under , his assumed name of Holmes. Defendant posed as plaintiff's wife, and they lived as married people until last February. Plaintiff was promoted by his employers and was in charge of an insurance branch in Dunedin until 1910. Later he had charge in Christchurch, and the parties were living there until 1916. At that time a property was purchased in Christchurch in the name of "Mrs. Holmes'" Here a child was born. Plaintiff's employment was terminated as the company disapproved of his practice of apportioning commission. The parties then came North and obtained a property lit Northcote through exchanging the Christchurch investment. Plaintiff",s health was bad and defendant took charge of his affairs. She decided to engage in a drapery business, and in 1917 one was bought- at Ponsonbv for' £2OOO. Payment was made through sale of the Northcote property for £IOSO, and the balance was supplied from plaintiff's savings, and by £SOO advanced by the National Bank at Newton on overdraft secured by plaintiff's properties. The parties lived in the drapery shop and at the end of 1917 plaintiff was able to resume work as an insurance canvasser. Very substantial payments were made byplaintiff to maintain the business. An Acknowledgment of Debt. In 1918 defendant- was very ill, and the question of a will was suggested. It was decided to avoid this as both had entered into a con .pact to do nothing that might disclose they were unmarried. The matter was settled in the hospital by defendant drawing up an acknowledgment ox indebtedness to plaintiff for £2OOO. This document had lately disappeared and plaintiff considered defendant had removed it. In 1920 plaintiff's work necessitated absence from home for frequent periods. He suspected that defendant's affection was wavering. Defendant admitted that this was true, but an apparent reconciliation was effected and for some time afterward affectionate messages and letters were exchangd. In September 1924, plaintiff realised that defendant's affections had been definitely won by her present husband, Nicholas, a widower whom she married last July, j As the utmost secrecy had been observed by the parties, plaintiff had not heard from Britain concerning Johnstone's death. Last February defendant refused to live with plaintiff and she repudiated liability for the return of any of the money in her business. Mr. Northeroft suggested that- plaintiff was under the impression that Nicholas had taken a sinister part in the matter. Mr. Dickson objected to the allegation. The Plaintiff's Evidence. Plaintiff said that defendant sought his aid because Johnstone ill-treated her, and she was receiving only 25s a week to keep the family. Johnstone was consumptive. When Nicholas came on the scene, defendant said she was sorry for plaintiff as she did not know whether she wanted him or Nicholas. In reply to Mr. Dickson, plaintiff said he now had about £2OOO in cash, as well as a property in Christchurch. Defendant had always promised to marry him when she received advice of her husband's death. Mr. Dickson suggested the Christchurch property had been bought in plaintiff's name in order to provide for the expected child. Plaintiff denied that the property was a gift, and said he had temporarily placed it in defendant's name in order that she would be provided for in the event of his sudden death. T«> Mr. Dickson : I have never threatened to marry anyone else. If Mrs. Nicholas was free to-day I would marry her His Honor said the onus was on defendant to prove that the moneys were gift- Otherwise the matter should be treated as a partnership and then defendant would be entitled to obtain wages for I tier management of the business. ! Mr. Dickson submitted that plaintiff had broken up defendant's home in England and deserved no consideration. His Honor: I cannot punish him. If his conduct was bad, what was her conduct ? Mr. Dickson contended the Northcote property had become defendant's property as it was exchanged for the Christchurch gift, Plaintiff had now over £4OOO. His Honor: Are you asking me to give judgment against a man because he has money m the bank * Defendant's Will Produced. Mr. Dickson said plaintiff had received all lie was entitled to. Recently plaintiff had been so cm el to defendant that she attempted, to commit suicide. Defendant had not given an acknowledgment of debt to plaintiff. Counsel produced defendant's will. Defendant, in evidence, said she was 19 years of age when she came to New r/ eaiand with plaintiff. The property in Christchurch had been a gift to her to provide for the child. Any money received by her 7 was a gift. Plaintiff had not offered to marry her, but used to refer to other women whom lie could marry. She had met Nicholas, who was a tailor, and who lost, his wife through illness three years ago/ To His Honor, defendant said she married Johnstone when she was 15 years' old. She was an .orphan and was married without anybody's consent. Her age was given to the registrar as 21. She heard of Johnstone's death about four years ago und had told Holmes. Mr. Di6ks6n submitted that as the relationship between the parties was immoral the alleged contract was not enforcible. , The case was adjourned until this morning.