RETURN OF ADVANCES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19196, 9 December 1925, Page 8

RETURN OF ADVANCES.

UNUSUAL DOMESTIC CLAIM,. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. JUDGE RESERVES DECISION. The case in which Robert Richard Holmes, insurance ugent (Mr. Northcroft), sought to recover £6068 from Mary Winifred Nicholas (Mr. Dickson and Mr. McLiver), was concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice. Tho money was described as advances made while the parties were living together as man and wife. Plaintiff alternatively sought an order directing the taking of accounts concerning defendant's drapery business at Ponsonby. Defendant counter-claimed for maintenance for six years for herself and child at the rate of £.500 a year. Mr. Dickson reforrcd to the law on immoral contracts. His Honor said that if he was to believe the woman's statement that she allowed herself to be prostituted for the purpose of getting money from tho man, then the contract was immoral. Mr. Dickson said that in fairness to the woman's case and in view of the publicity given to the proceedings, it should bo stated that the blame was not hers. Plaintiff, having purchased a home in England, seduced the woman, and continued immoral relationship with her in New Zealand. His Honor: You cannot plead that way. The Question of Marriage. Counsel said that as a result of plaintiff's cruelty, Mrs. Nicholas attempted to commit suicide. He had ruined her life, had said that he could marry other women, and now wanted to put her on one side. He had never made a suggestion of marriage. His Honor: But he did not know that she was able to be married. Mr. Dickson: But Jie never mado any inquiries about her husband. Counsel said that plaintiff had gone so far as to say that there was some sinister motive on the part of Nicholas in marrying the woman. His Honor: It is no use bringing in Nicholas. We have nothing to do with him. Mr. Dickson: He acted the paj-t of the honourable man when tho other man refused to do so. If Holmes had not lived with her, he would not have given her any property. Tho position showed that Holmes was keeping the money for her and he had no proprietary right in the business. It could not be held that tho money in the bank belonged to him. His Honor: If I find a person telling lies, I never accept that person's statement unless it is corroborated. The woman commences her life by tolling a lie to the registrar stating she was 21 when she was only 15. Mr. Dickson: If she told a lie to get married legitimately — His Honor: It is not legitimate to tell litis. " Should Have Been Settled." Mr. Dickson remarked that plaintiff's story would therefore also have to be discredited. The fact was that the money would not have been put in the woman s name if she had not been prepared to live with him. Ilicro was no pioof »oi partnership. His Honor agreed there was no proof of partnership. He said the parties should have settled the matter if they had any regard for tho character and life of the child. Mr. Dickson: That is just my point. His Honor: I have no doubt that a settlement might have been reached. I suggested that at the opening of the case. Decision was reserved. Mr. Dickson said he would refer the question of settlement to his client.