SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3806, 22 February 1927, Page 23

SUPREME COURT.

A HUSBAND "S CLAIM. In the Supreme Court on Friday before ins Honor Mr. Justice Reed, Andrew Pringle claimed from Annie Pringle the sum of £lOOO, alleged to have been wrongfully obtained from the Public Trustee, and also asked for an order that accounts be taken. Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for claimant and Mr. A. G. Neill for defendant. In outlining the case, Mr Sinclair said it was a husband’s claim against his wife, and it was particularly unfortuntae that the dispute could not be settled out of court. Claimant was a well-known trainer and owner of trotting horses. In May, 1920, he took over the lease of the Empire Hofei in Dunedin, and held it till April, 1921. At that time, it was alleged, his wife had no means. In September, 1921, he leased a hotel in Christchurch, but in May, 1924, broke down in health, and appointed his wife manager of his affairs. On August 1, 1924, he was committed to Sunnyside Hospital, and his affairs were managed by the Public Trustee, hi s wife being appointed advisory committee to the Public Trustee. He was in thes hospital for some time, and the opinion of the doctors was that he would not recover. Defendant then made a claim for £ICOO from the Public Trustee, which she alleged had been given to her by her mother, and loaned to claimant. To the surpise of everyone the latter recovered, and came out of the hospital, to learn that in addition to the £lOOO she got from the Public I rustee. defendant had sold the pacer Jazolock for £2OO, and had kept the proceeds. At the time defendant was in partnership with a man in a Dunedin hotel, and she instituted proceedings against ciaimant for separation and maintenance. Counsel submitted that there should be a thorough examination of defendant’s bank accounts ; if she had nothing to fear, why should she not produce them ? Witness would prove that defendant had authorised a Mr Townsend to make an offer of £7OO. If she owed nothing why had she made that offer? Mr Samson, who transacted some of the business, was satisfied that at the time that the lease of the Empire Hotel was taken over, defendant had no means of her own, vet in 1924 she was apparently possessed of £l6OO. Claimant would say that defendant could not have got money from her mother. The latter did not have money ; he had often helped her. Beyond question, defendant was guilty of a wrongful act in selling the pacer Jazolock while the Public Trustee was a committee in law.

Andrew Pringle, horse trainer and retired hotelkeeper, said that he leased the Empire Hotel in 1920. He gave £6OO for a twelve-months’ lease, and took over the stock at valuation. He had just previously sold his property in Ashburton for £lBOO. His wile did not put any money into the Empire Hotel transaction; she had none .at the time. He left it to his wife to bank the takings. The following year he sold out and went to Christchurch, where he ultimately acquired the lease of the Railway Hotel. The goodwill cost £1750, and the stock about £llOO. Ward and Co. helped him to the extent of £5OO on that occasion. His wife did not put money into the transaction. He bad never made any investments on the lotalisator, and handed th e profits to his wife. When his health broke down he authorised his wife to look after his affairs. On August 1, 1924, he was committed to Sunnyside ; at that time his wife had no money of tier own. He never had a statement of his affairs from his wife. In addition to his interest in the hotel lie owned a pacer called Jazolock, two young trotters, and trotting gear. He understood that Jazolock was sold for £2OO, but bis wife had not accounted to him for the money. He came out of the hospital in November, 1925. His wife was then in partnership in a Dunedin hotel. He asked her about the sale of Jazolock, and learned that the proceeds had not been handled by the Public Trustee. He learned also that his wife then had £l6OO. and he instructed his solicitor to write and demand his ~u»ney. She also had a valuable diamond ring, and a piano, which he claimed were his. He did not join his wife when he came out of the hospital, because she would not have him. To Mr Neill : He never raced any horses while he was in the Empire Hotel, but he rode and drove at trotting meetings. When he was away on those occasions his wife managed the hotel. At that> time he and his wife got on well together. He did not know that his wife had a bank account in 1921. Mr Neil] was questioning witness concerning several accounts, when Mr Sinclair said that the necessity for the questions would be obviated if all the bocks and accounts were produced. Mr Neill : We claim that Mrs Pringle is accountable from May 15 to August 1— a period of two months. "Sktr Sinclair: If they have nothing to fear why don’t they produce all accounts and books from the date of their going into the Empire Hotel? His Honor made an order that accounts be taken by the registrar as between the parties from Mav, 1920, and intimated that he would take the case on his return from Invercargill. PETITIONS IN DIVORCE. In the Supreme Court on Saturday morning his Honor Mr Justice Reed dealt with several petitions for divorce and an application for restitution of conjugal rights. A MUSICIAN’S APPLICATION. The case of Hugh Kennedy Black (petL tioner) v. Iris Cecilia Black (respondent) was an application by the former for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr B. S. Irwin, who appeared for petitioner, said that the parties were married in 1909. Both were musical, and

travelled about with theatrical companies for some time. Respondent had no reason to complain of petitioner’s conduct, but had apparently just decided to remain in Christchurch, where she was employed as musical directress in a picture theatre. Petitioner was now teachiu. tiusie at Alexandra, and wanted his wire and child to live with him. The co. s-t-ypondeuce between .them showed that was well disposed towards petitioner, who had no other alternative to making an application for restitution. Petitioner said he was married on May 5, 1905, at Adelaide, and his wife and he travelled in Australia and India. Eventually they came to New Zealand, and while in Christchurch they arranged that they should give up travelling, and that petitioner should teach music at Alexandra, where his brother resided. Respondent did not join him at Alexandra, and in correspondence and at a subsequent interview she definitely refused to do so. His Honor made an order for restitution of conjugal rights within 14 days. BROTHER AS CO-RESPONDENT. In the case of William Ross (petitioner) v. Ethel Stanford Ross (respondent) and George Ross (co-respondent), the application for divorce was based on the grounds of misconduct. Mr H. appeared for petitioner, said there were some peculiar circumstances in the case. Petitioner knew practically nothing of any misconduct from his own knowledge, but from what he had heard he took proceedings for divorce in June, 1925. ’ Before the time for the filing of an answer to the petition had expired respondent came back to her husband and swore that she was innocent. Although petitioner took her back, counsel contended that there was no condonation because at the time he took her. back petitioner really thought she was innocent. In May, 1926, he found a letter which proved that she was guilty. Petitioner said that he was married at Invercargill on April 18, 1911, and had since lived in Invercargill, Marton, and Dunedin. Co-respondent, who was his brother, lived with them in Dunedin for some time. Respondent left him on three occasions, and she stated in a letter from Auckland that co-respondent was there also. In consequence of what Hie heard w.tness instituted divorce proceedings in 1925. Later respondent returned, and swore she was innocent. She was a religious woman, and he was impressed with what she said, and believed her then to be innocent. On May 1, 1926, he received from the postman a letter addressed to respondent in co-respondent's handwriting, and be opened and read it in front of her. It began “My dearest love,” and was signed “Kid.” She then told witness that she cared more for his brother, and was sorry that the original divorce proceedings had not been gone on with. A fortnight later she left, and in letters received from her she said she wanted her freedom, but not at the expense of the child. A sister of respondent detailed the circumstances under which she had seen the latter coming out cf co-respondent’s room, and a cousin of the icspondejit stated that the latter was very annoyed when she learned that witness “had been out for a walk with George one. night.” His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to make it absolute at the expiration of three calendar months. In answer to his Honor, Mr Brasch stated that petitioner did not apply for costs. It would be useless, because corespondent had nothing and did not work. THREE YEARS’ SEPARATION. In the case of Lilian Murray (petitioner) v. Cecil R. Murray (respondent), the application for divorce was based on the grounds of mutual separation for three years and upwards. Mr A. C. Hanlon, who appeared in support of the application, said a deed of separation wa® made between the parties on July 31. 1923, and they had not since lived together. After hearing formal evidence, his Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to make it absolute at the expiry of three calendar months, costs on the lower scale being gianted against respondent, who was given interim custody of lhe child. In support of the application for divorce by John Alien Crofts against Ada Crofts, on the grounds of separation for three years and upwards, Mr B. S. Irwin brought evidence to show that the parties, who were married in 1890, separated in 1523 and had not since lived together. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move it absolute after expiry of three calendar months. DECREES MADE ABSOLUTE. Decrees wore made absolute in the following eases;—Michael Thomas Nevlon (petitioner; Mr \V. L. Moore) v. Fthel May Nevlon (respondent) ; Jessie Jane Russell (petitioner: Mr W. L. Moore) v. William Lunam Russell (respondent); Elizabeth Eva Reed (petitioner; Mr J. M. Paterson) v. Frank Albert Reed (respondent); Lily Brown (petitioner: Mr B. S. Irwin) v. Gerald Christopher Brown (respondent); Mabel Alma Chalmers (petitioner; Mr R. S. M. Sinclair) v. David Chalmers (respondent); Mary Dwyer (petitioner; Mr B. S. Irwin) v. Thomas Joseph Dwyer (respondent).