RETURN SOUGHT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23005, 5 April 1938, Page 14

RETURN SOUGHT

CLAIM AGAINST WOMAN JEWELLERY AND SHARES ACTION BY AUCKLANDER CASE IN THE SUVA COURT [FROM OCR OWN correspondent] SUVA, March 28 A case of unusual interest was heard at the Supreme Court. Suva, during last week, when Colin Woollam Anderson, of Auckland claimed against Gladys Neville Windrutn, of Suva, for the return of jewellery handed to defendant on December 7, 1936, ami for the delivery and retrnnsfer to the plaintiff of 620 ordinary shares in New Zealand Newspapers. Limited, and a life insurance policy with the Alliance Insurance Company, Limited, transferred by plaintiff to the defendant on December 6, 1936, or the value of tho said jewellery, shares and life "insurance policy. The case was heard before His Honor the Chief Justice, Mr. 0. C. K. Corrie.

Mr. G, F. Grahamc, with hitn Mr. D. M. iN\ McFarlane. appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. Robert Crompton, K.C., with him Mr. R. A. Cromptou, appeared for defendant. In opening the case Mr. Grahame stated that it was not going to be a pleasant procpeding and he was instructed by the plaintiff that it was his very earnest desire to settle the matter if possible. Mr. Crompton said that he did not think that any settlement was possible and he could give very solid reasons, but did not want j to pre judice the case at that stage and j would say no more. Nature of Claims In his statement of claim plaintiff said he was a company director of independent means residing at Auckland, and defendant was a married woman, the wife of James Edward Windrum, of the Colony of Fiji, civil servant, living separate from her husband and residing with her father, Sir Henry Milne Scott, in Suva, Plaintiff became acquainted with the defendant while in Auckland in April, 1934, and on December 5, 1936. at Auckland, verbally promised to give her £3OO a year and for the purpose of securing the payment to her of that amount handed to her on -December 7, 1986, certain articles of jewellery then of an estimated value of £5500. transferred to her 620 ordinary fully-paid £1 shares in New Zealand Newspapers, Limited, then of a value of £2 per share, and assigned to her an insurance jwlicy No. 68471 for £IOOO on plaintiff's life, payable in 1940 and estimated to produce £I6OO at maturity, which jewellery. shares and policy the defendant agreed with the plaintiff she would hold as security for the due payment of the allowance which the plaintiff had promised to give to her. " , End ol Association The plaintiff claimed that he paid the allowance during the month of December. 1936. to April, 1937, inclusive. In April. 1937, the: • defendant left Auckland and returned to Suva. Plaintiff sent to defendant by post on May 3, 1937, a cheque for £25 in payment of the allowance for tlie month of Mav, which the defendant returned to plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon requested the return of mie jewellery, shares and insurance policy, which had not been done. The plaintiff tliereffflfc claimed a return of the jewellery, the certificate of the shares and the life insurance policy, and an order that the defendant execute a transfer of • the shares and an assignment of the policy to the plaintiff, or pay to plaintiff the value of the jewellery, shares ana life insurance policy. Statement of Defence

In her statement of defence, defendant denied that she was living with her father. She admitted becoming acquainted with plaintiff in April, and stated that the acquaintance eontinned to April, 1937. She denied that plaintiff promised to give her an annuity of £3OO a year and that for the purpose of securing such payment he liandcd lier the . jewellery and snares and assigned to her the insurance policy. Defendant claimed that plaintiff gave her the jewellery, and at the same time handed her a letter_ reading as follows: —" My Beloved Neville. Hie articles of jewellery as shown 011 the attached list have been given by mo for you to have and to hold lor all time as your absolute property and as a sign of my deep love and affection for you." Continuing the defendant stated that plaintiff himself lodged the certificates for the shares duly transferred to and accepted by defendant, and assigned by deed to the defendant absolutely the insurance "policy. She denied that "■ she agreed to hold the jewellery, shares and insurance policy as secifrity for the due payment of the allowance referred to, and said that they were given to her by the plaintiff to be hers absolutely. . In regard to her acquaintance with plaintiff defendant said that it was an unlawful and immoral association during the course of which the plaintiff cohabited and committed adultery with her. The transfer of shares, the gjft of jewellery and the assignment of the insurance policy were made in respect and in furtherance of the said illegal, unlawful and immoral association. Reply by Plaintiff In an answer to the defence, filed on plaintiff's behalf, he admitted gi f * ing defendant the letter dated December 5, 1936, but denied that it was the basis on which the jewellery was handed over. He claimed that the defendant did not "take the jewellery as a gift, but as security.'T-for the pay* ment of the allowance of £'3oo a . VOi,r : Defendant, he alleged, acknowledged I it was handed to her on those terms m a letter to the plaintiff signed by her on December 6, 1936. The jewellery was handed to defendant on December 7. in a case which was deported ■ with the Bank of New South i Auckland, Defendant's letter, plaintiff i alleged, was with the jewellery in the 1 case. It set out the conditions on l which the jewellery, shares and u> ! suranee policy were to be held by the defendant. . i The plaintiff denied, in another I clause of the reply, that his acqunin- | tanceship with the defendant was an unlawful and immoral association. The hearing occupied live days, (luring which lengthy evidence was givon by both plaintiff and defendant. At the conclusion His Honor said he would reserve judgment, as he thought it desirable to give a reasoned jn'ig* ment on questions of law which had been raised.

DIVORCE PETITION QUESTION OF DOMICILE [from our own correspondent] SUVA, March 29 Legal argument on the grounds of domicile was heard in the Supremo Court at Suva yesterday before t' ia Chief Justice. Mr. 0. C. K. Corrie, when .Tames Edward Wmdrum petitioned for divorce from Gladys Neville Windrum. Colin Wool lam Anderson, or Auckland, was named as co-respondent. The question raised was whether, the petitioner ,is domiciled in KipHonor announced that he would reset* judgment- on the question,