CLAIM BY HUSBAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20383, 11 October 1929, Page 11

CLAIM BY HUSBAND.

MONEYS HELD BY WIFE.

INVESTMENT OF SAVINGS.

COURT NON-SUITS PLAINTIFF.

[BST telegraph.—own correspondent.]

NEW PLYMOUTH, Thursday.

An unußual application was made in tho Magistrate's Court at Now Plymouth to-day, having for its object the hearing privately of a claim by a husband against his wife for the recovery of moneys held by her, and which were alleged to belong to tho husband.

Tho case was one in which Boy Keith McGiven sued Dorothy Ellen McGiven for tho return of £IOO deposited with the New Plymouth Finance Company, and of 150 shares in tho Now Plymouth Brewery Company, together with interest and dividends duo or accrued thereon. /

Mr. R. Brokenshiro, for plaintiff, made preliminary application that tho Court be declared a private room. He invoked the Married Women's Property Act as the basis of his application, and said it was made with the object of excluding from tho hearing not only the public but also the press. Defendant did not now reside in New Plymouth but plaintiff did, and although publicity would not affect her it would affect him. As it was merely a matter botweon husband and wife as to who owned tho money and shares in question, ho thought nothing would bo gained by giving publicity to tho proceedings. Application Refused.

Tho magistrate, Mr. R. W. Tate, said he regarded tho section of tho Act quoted by counsel as giving discretionary power. The power of prohibition of publication had to be very carefully administered, and where there was a discreet press ho did not think anything would be gained. Ho therefore could not grant the application.

In outlining the case Mr. Brokenshire said plaintiff had, in May, 1927, a sum of £2OO in the New Plymouth Savings Bank. His wife knew of this. They discussed tho question of securing a better return from the money and it was agreed to place £IOO on deposit with the New Plymouth Finance Company and to buy 150 shares in the Now Plymouth Brewery Company, which was then being formed. A deposit was made and the shares were acquired in the wife's name, in order to facilitate the business connected with the transactions, as plaintiff found it difficult to get away from his work to attend to the business. Trouble Arises Over Money. Plaintig therefore withdrew £lB3 from tho bank and gavo it to his wife to deposit. The brewery shares were also obtained in the wife's name, and paid for out of the moneys which she retained of that which plaintiff had withdrawn from the bank. Trouble over these moneys arose after the wife had deserted her husband. Proceedings were taken for the restitution of conjugal rights) and a decree was made which the wife had not obeyed. The defence to the present proceedings was that on February 12, 1929, the husband had said that he jnade a gift of the moneys to defendant. After hearing evidence the magistrate said plaintiff had not proved that the money was not a gift, and he would therefore non-suit him. Security for appeal was fixed.