STRANGE LAWSUIT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21769, 7 April 1934, Page 2 (Supplement)

STRANGE LAWSUIT

WEDDING DOCUMENT STORY AUSTRALIAN HEIRESS SUED HUSBAND BRINGS ACTION /DEFENCE OF INSOBRIETY 'V Around a document alleged to have Ticen signed by a wealthy Australian girl an hour or two before her wedding ;i remarkable legal fight was recently waged in the Chancery Division in London. The document was said to create a trust, fund of £55,000, the income of which was to bo shared by Mr. Benjamin Jacob, formerly of ."Bagdad, company director, and his

•wife, formerly Miss Joan Norton, an 'Australian heiress. The former asserted his bride had refused to perform the npimmicnt, with the result that ho had been deprived of his share. For the defence it was alleged that at the time tiny girl was under the influence of drink and that if the signature was hers it was written without the memorandum being explained to her.

The document in dispute, dated Jafniary S, 19-JO, Mas in the following terms: —-" In consideration of our marriage to-day, I hereby undertake, within two years, to settle upon trust, in England, the sum of £55,000 (in trustee securities'), and we shall receive tho income on the sum

in equal shares during our respective lives, and ."<ll the death of either of "us for our children; terms of such settlement to be drawn bv counsel, who shall* h avo free hands as to the details; the trustees to be my bank and your •"bank managers." It. was also alleged that while Mr. nnd Mrs. Sliashoua were at Cannes in January, 1932, they signed the following document: —"In consideration of my, husband Ben Shashoua agreeing to lca'vrj in abeyance the marriage settlement of January 8, 19.30, 1, Joan Sbashoua, do agree to a settlement irrevocably on my husband, Ben Sliashoua, for the remainder of his life of one-third of my whole income. This document shall bo sufficient to my trustees to act on it and pay such income duo. direct to mv husband. This settlement -shall only come into force if L ever leave or desert my husband or divorce my; .husband or die. u Bather Strange Defence " Mr. Upjohn, K,C.,.for the husband, stated atthe outset that another action was pending between Mr. and -Mrs. Sbashoua. The signature on the document was " Joan Norton," the bride's name before marriage, Mrs. Shashoua was*apparently wealthy, and was entitled to one-third of her father's estate. At the time of the, marriage she* was 22. The ceremony took place on January 8, 1930, at a register office in London.

Dealing with tho content ion of the defence that Mrs. Shashoua : did not understand the purport of" tho document, Mr. Upjohn declared: " 1 am going to prove that it had been under discussion "for months. And now comes this rather strange defence for a young ■woman under 22 years of age, just about to be married. " The defence continues: ' At the time she was under the influence of drink, so as to bo incapable of understanding the same, and such, memorandum is not her agreement.' She also denies that the signature was written before the marriage." Extravagant Living Another allegation in the defence was that in order to bring about the marriage and the settlement Mr. Shashoua falsely pretended that he was a man of wealth, and that he owned large properties, whereas he was utterly •impecunious. Mr. Upjohn explained that Miss Norton met Mr. Shashoua in 1927, when she was visiting England in the course ot a world tour. She returned to England in 1929, and they became engaged. Miss Norton seemed quite pleased with the engagement, for Mr. Shashoua was a well-to-do young business man, although, of course, his means did not compare with hers. Mrs. Shashoua appeared to be able to live in an extravagant way, and Mr. Shashoua felt lie could not out of his own resources maintain her when she was Ins wife on the same scale as that to which she was accustomed. The young people began to talk about a settlement which would result in Mrs. Shashotih bringing money of hers into England. Mr. Shashoua, learned from her and her mother that she was the daughter of a man who had owned two large businesses in Sydney. He also knew that sho was an " infant " when her, lather died, and that; by his will, he had left everything he had to her, " because, I think, lie was not 011 good terms with his wife- ami son." There were proceedings in tjie Australian courts in which the widow and son asked to have the will set aside. The result was a settlement ami the estate was divided into thirds, to that Miss Norton got one-third, r" Plenty For Both of Us " Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., for tho wife,' interposed with the remark that the courts apparently rewrote the will, and Mrs. Shashoua's position was that theoincome, until sho came of ago, accumulated, and about £83,000 was invested iu shares. The capital was tied up until sho was »fT>. Continuing, Mr. Upjohn slated that •Mr. Shashoua pointed out to Miss Norton that although he was able to carry on and enjoy himself as a bachelor, ■when he became married other monetary considerations might arise. Her rcplfy was: "There is plenty for both Ot us." Among licr Iricnds was a solicitor, hut although Mr. Shashoua asked her lu seek l"gal advice, she refused. She scemiM to regard the matter as a. : imple 0110. "My case," stated Mr. Upjohn, " is that 'Mrs. Shashoua perfectly understood, and there is no question of j 11lluenee on Mr. Shashoua's part. They were engaged. Mr. Roland Oliver is a younger man than I, but my idea is that young men at those times are more under the influence of the young lady. Perhnps 1 am old-fashioned." Several days worn occupied in cmntho case put forward by Mr. Sii.ishmiH, who was in the box for eight and was closely cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. ■When Mr. Justice Lnxmore took his Beat after tho week-end adjournment,

Mr. Upjohn said he had gone through the shorthand notes in the interim, it had never been disputed that Mrs. Shashoua had 110 independent advice. " Mr. Shashoua had been heard and made his excuses," counsel continued, " and lie has admitted that the document was concealed lrom her mother and brother and her advisers for something like two years. In these circumstances this action has become hopeless. I have taken a certain course and saved any further unpleasantness and unsavoury evidence. •' Mr. .Roland Oliver and I have had a. talk. Mr. Shashoua is the plaintiff in a slander action against his wile's mother, and in another action against his wife's mother and brother for interfering with their matrimonial relations nnd inducing his wife to forsake him. Mr. Oliver and J both feel that if we could end all litigation between the parties and save the Court from hearing all the evidence given in ibis ease over again it would be a good thing. Mr. Oliver has made an offer, which will result in a certain judgment being made and the action being dismissed. On the counterclaim there will he delivery up of the two documents dated January 8, 3930, and a second document signed in January, 1932." Mr. Oliver had risen to read the terms of the settlement when Mr. Shashoua, who was sitting immediately in front of Mr. Upjohn, turned to a woman from a solicitor's office who was on his right, and spoke hastily, lie then half rose in his seat and spoke ta Mr. Upjohn. Counsel stood up in amazement, and, with a gesture, prevented Mr. Oliver from going on.

In a voice audible to most people in tilie crowded court Mr. Upjohn remarked to Mr. Shashoua, " Why in the world didn't you say so?" Most of those in court also heard Mr. Shashoua reply: " 1 told her, 1 told her!"

It was an astonishing episode, counsel ami client gesticulating and arguing, until Mr. Upjohn I'm ally turned to Mr. Justice Luxmoro, who had been ■watching the scene below him, and remarked: "On Friday afternoon and t his morning L was able to devote some time to Mr. Shashoua, and I certainly

thought that plaintiff instructed me that he would accept the arrangement I made with Mr. Oliver, and that I might come into court and make the statement I did."

Mr. Shashoua again half rose in his seat and began whispering to Mr. Upjohn. Mr. Upjohn spoke to Mr. Oliver and then declared: " It is making public what is not usually made public, but I can't help it. My client places me in that position. Mr. Oliver and 1 met to put these arrangements into shape. I rend them to plaintiff and he didn't, like them. I don't know that I liked them for him very much. 1 told him that the alternative was to havo the action dismissed with costs. Then he withdrew with his solicitors to discuss the terms. 1 understood the solicitor to stiy that ho would accept these terms, and I made my statement based upon that understanding. But now Mr. Shashoua says, ' No. Those were not the instructions.' He says he preferred tho case to be dismissed with costs."

Mr. Justin! Lu\more; li' Mr. Simslion it submits to tin? action beinn dismissed with costs no more can be said. After further argument, Mr. .Justice. Luxniore declared there would be an order for the delivery up of the two documents (the agreements of January, K.'SO, mid of January, on the counterclaim, and Mr. Shashouu Mould |ij;V the costs of the action and of tlio counterclaim. In an inferview Mr. Khashoua declared he liad refused to settle because the acceptance of that oiler involved the .settlement of tlio other litigation. Me would be able to continue his other action against his wife's mother and her brother for interforinji with their matrimonial affairs, and "would get on with that ua soon as possible.