BOOKMAKER'S PROFITS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20701, 26 April 1929, Page 11

BOOKMAKER'S PROFITS.

AN UNUSUAL CASE. HUSBAND SUES WIFE. (P»B United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April 24. An - unusual cage is being heard before Mr Justice MacGregor, in which Richard Coxon is suing his wife for the recovery , of or for an order declaring the sum of £IOOO his property. Mr Leicester, for the plaintiff, frankly stated, that Coxon had been carrying on business as a bookmaker, and to minimise the apparent size of his operations paid money into his wife’s account in the Post Office Savings Bank, and later deposited £IOOO in the Union Bank in defendant’s name; £l7O belonged to the > defendant, but plaintiff cleared himself of his indebtedness. A disagreement arose between the parties,"'and plaintiff took steps to see if defendant was prepared to give an acknowledgment that the money belonged to plaintiff. . The result was that money was redeposited for a further term of two years, and for that reason the plaintiff considered it desirable to delay the action against his wife in case it disclosed his hookmaking operations. At that time Coxon. had not been con-, victed, but'he had since been prosecuted twice and fined. In December a claim was made on the bank for £IOOO, and proceedings were then instituted. The defence denies the allegations as to the purpose of the account, and contends that the money was part of the defendant’s separate estate. The defendand also claimed that the money, was obtained partly by keeping boarders and as gifts from the plaintiff in recognition of defendant’s services in the conduct of his business. It wda further submitted that even if tlib money was given on trust the trust was -for an ’ improper ‘ and unlawful purpose, and could not be enforced. The question was raised whether the plaintiff could proceed against his wife except by way of summary procedure under the Married Women’s PropeAy Act, and the objection was noted. • The plaintiff gave evidence, and Mr Mazengarb (for the wife) asked for a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff could not set up- fraudulent intent and had not rebutted the presumption that the money was a gift to his wife. '■ ,J n giving; judgment in -favour of thedefendant, his Honor said: "I am satisfied that this court should not interfere and should not assist the plaintiff in carrying out an unlawful agreement. It is equaiiy clear that it is open to the defendant to set up the unlawful agreement as a defence. Indeed, if it is not contended, it is the duty of the court to set up tlie defence.” t Costs were, given to the defendant on the lowest spate. ’ The sum was given, stated-his Honor, by the plaintiff to his wife m order to conceal the amount he was making at bookmaking.