A HUSBAND’S CLAIM.

Otago Witness, Issue 3808, 8 March 1927, Page 31

A HUSBAND’S CLAIM.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST • ‘ WIFE. £lOOO LN DISPUTE. The ease in which Andrew Pringle, horse trainer and retired hotelkeeper, claimed from Ivy Pringle the sum of £lOO.O, alleged to have been wrongfully obtained.. from the Public Trustee, was continued, before his Honor Mr Justice Reed, in the. Supreme Court on Tuesday. Mr J_ S. Sinclair appeared for the claimant, .and Mr A. G. Neill for the defendant. Andrew. Pringle, under cross-examina-tion by Mr Neill, admitted that he had given his- wife an order to draw £941 from the Union Bank of Australia in Dunedin. He could not say if his wife was present when he called at the Union Bank of Australia in Christchurch on September 8, 1921, but he did not think she was. The difference between the amount drawn from the bank in Dunedin and the deposit he made in Christchurch was made up by the sale of his car, which .realised £5OO. He was using the car up till the time he took over the hotel in Christchurch. Witness could not reniemb r how the balance of the purchase money for the hotel in Christchurch was made up. The purchase price was £3133 14s. He got £5OO from Ward and Co., but he did not get anything from his wife. Witness did not remember a conversation with Mr -Hullett, of Christchurch, in the presence of Mrs Pringle, concerning the opening entries in witness’s account books. Mr Hullett might have kept the books for two years. He never told Mr Hullett to put in £5OO for Mrs Pringle when the capital account was being opened. Witness did not think the books were destroyed in the.fire, which occurred in May, 1923, but he had not noticed them since. Witness admitted that he had signed a document in May, 1924, authorising his wife to take over the management of the hotel. Witness had some trouble with a man named Finnerty, but he did not strike him'with a bottle. Compensation to the amount of £l5O was paid to Finnerty, but Mrs Pringle did not pay it. The ring which witness was claiming was not given by him to his wife. Some furniture was paid for by Mrs Pringle with witness’s money. A piano, which was bought by Mrs Cheyne (Mrs Pringle’s mother), was paid for with witness’s money. Witness would not admit that the piano was ever Mrs Pringle’s property. The money received from the sale of a horse called Wyndham went into the business. He might have give, it to his wife. Mrs Pringle kept the three children with witness’s money. After witness was discharged from the riiental hospital he lived with his wife for a time until he discovered that he was not wanted. He never slept with a razor in his pocket. To Mr Sinclair: When witness went into the Christchurch hotel he thought he had sufficient money with the exception of what he borrowed from the brewery. Prior to his illness he was not aware that his wife had money. His wife did the banking for him. The trotter Wyndham was sold for £lOO, and that money should have gone into the bank. It was not given to his wife as a present. Frederick John Townsend, jeweller, said ho sold a gentleman’s ring to Pringle some years ago. He did not remember the price, but he knew that it was a valuable ring. Witness knew both Pringle and Mrs Pringle well. He had met Mrs Pringle in the street last year, and she had suggested that he should see her husband’s solicitor with the object of settling th<j matter out of court. Mrs Pringle had offered £7OO and £25 costs to settle the case, but the offer was not accepted. Cross-examined by Mr Neill: The ring mentioned was really a gentleman’s ring, but it was not unusual for ladies to wear rings of such a large size. Thomas Wood, builder, said he was a brother-in-law of claimant. In January, 1926, the latter- called at witness’s house and stayed for two or three weeks. Witness was not in a position to say whether defendant had had any money of her own. To Mr Neill He was not financially interested in the result of the case. Philip Gordon Dwyer, clerk in the Public Trust Office, Christchurch, said he handled the estate from the beginning of August, 1924. He was in touch with the defendant, who was managing the hotel at the time. She was allowed maintenance for herself and the children. Defendant made a claim for £lO5O, which was supported by a statutory declaration. She was called upon to prove her claim, and declarations were made by her and by Mr Hullett, the accountant. His Honor asked if anything had been considered in the way of an annuity to claimant. A lump sum would be of very little use.

Mr Neill: Defendant has not the means, your Honor, and she has her children to keep. Continuing, witness said that the declarations were sent to Wellington, and word came back to the effect that the matter should be further gone into, and defendant was asked to explain several transactions in the bank books. A further report was submitted to the head office. Hudletit told witness that claimant -had made, racing gifts to defendant on several occasions. After allowing for payment to the hospital, they money was exhausted through payment of the claim. There was a suggestion that there was a leakage in the takings somewhere. To Mr Neill: He found defendant to be a reliable and capable woman. He could not say whether the percentage of profit had increased during the period defendant was in charge. The Public Trustee did not take away from Hullett and Co. the control of the accounts. To Mr Sinclair: Defendant did not have authority to dispose of the horses or sulkies if they were assets in the estate.. James Martin Samson, auctioneer, in Dunedin, said he acted for claimant when the latter went into the Empire Hotel. To his knowledge defendant at that time had no money of her own. Claimant sold out his interests in the Empire Hotel and paid £5OO deposit on the purchase of a hotel at Winton, but the deal was not completed, -and he eventually took over the Railway Hotel at Christchurch.

The statement made by the defendant to the registrar was taken as evidence. This was to the effect that when, the claimant went into the Empire Hotel in Dunedin in ■1920 the arrangement was that the defendant wag to do the washing, take any girl’s

place, and party manage the house. As a remuneration for her services she was to receive the house moneys—the takings from the boarding part of the establishment. These moneys were accumulated by her, and with the exception of what she paid out for sundry household accounts were deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank, where they remained until the claimant purchased the Railway Hotel in Christchurch. When she ascertained the claimant s financial position and found that ho was £5OO short she drew out the whole of the moneys and lent them to her husband. Messrs Hullett and Co. were instructed -to open up books showing her £5OO as capital in the business. The arrangement which existed m Dunedin were continued in Christchurch. She had the house moneys up till the time of the fire, after which the arrangement was variedi She was then to receive £5 per week, and she took that amount up till the time the Public Trustee took over in 1924. Tfie defendant had advanced to the plaintiff £l5O paid by her in settlement of the compensation claim which arose out of the claimant assaulting ? f ?u rm ?. r J? arma ! 1 - , This was in addition t j the £5OO previously lent. She had withdrawn the balance of the moneys which she had accumulated and had put them into Pringles business in order to keep it going as things were not too good. • 10 iU : Witness was wearing the ring which her husband claimed. He had never worn the ring. She had never known him to wear a ring. When witness paid for the furniture her husband promised to repay the money to her \vitaess drew a cheque for £125 on November O’ oi x and usccJ tlle mon ey to pay £73 1/s 2d to a man named Rodgers for training and racing her husband’s horses and to meet her expenses in Christchurch. Rodgers had helped her financially at various times but she refused to state what the assistance was for. She got £lOOO from the Public 1 rust.ee and paid a deposit of £l6OO on the victoria Hotel.. The balance was obtained from Rodgers, who lent it without interest, the terms being that witness was to pay it back when she could do so. Witness received £5 per week while she was in the V ictoria Hotel, and when she sold out she got £69 more than she put in. Alfred Charles Hullett, accountant of the firm of Hullett and Co., Christchurch, said he was acting as accountant for Pringle prior to the fire.at tho Railway Hotel in 1923. Witness looked upon Pringle as the principal in business transactions. Witness opened up the books on the assumption that £SCO belonged to Mrs Pringle and the balance to Pringle. After the fire the books were kept in a gin case in the bulk store room. A fire broke out there, and witness did not see the books again. There was a perceptible increase in the percentage of profit after Mrs Pringle took charge of the hotel. Witness understood that Mrs Pringle got money from wealthv relations. Mrs Pringle paid £l5O as compensation for Finnerty. The question of Pringle putting money on racehorses for Mrs Pringle had frequently been discussed in the hearing of witness. The purchase money for the Railway Hotel could not have been met without including the £5OO belonging to Mrs Pringle unless Pringle had borrowed somewhere else. He knew of no such borrowing. To Mr Sinclair: Witness was not a registered accountant. He had been practising as an accountant at intervals since 1896 or 1897. His real occupation was not that of a barman, and he had never been a barman except in his own hotel. After Pringle’s first balance was made out the books were kept by Pringle’s nephew. Witness was cross-examined with reference to statements in a declaration by him that to the best of his knowledge Mrs Pringle had paid, sums of £156 and £2OO into her husband’s business. An inspection of Pringle’s balance sheet failed to reveal any trace of the moneys having been paid into the business, but the witness said he was certain that his statement was wrong. \\hen witness started to keep the books Pringle informed him that the horses bad nothing to do with the hotel business.

The case was continued on Wednesday, Mr Sinclair addressed the court at length, and analysed the evidence given by Mrs Pringle. , He submitted that the exp anations given by her regarding the manner in,which she had become possessed of certain moneys and certain chattels in the estate of Pringle were far from satisfactory and that the Public Trustee had been gulled. He asked that . the defendant be ordered to pay a sum into court. They had reason to believe that if judgment were given agaiist her there would be difficulty in etting the money. Her demeanour in the box showed that she would go to any length to avoid paving anything to claimant. Mr Neill contended that no order could be made. The onus was on claimant to prove that the money was trust money. His Honor: I might say I think there are moneys she has to accounj; for, but at this stage I cannot fix any specific amount. She might attempt to get away with it, but that would be a dangerous thing to do. I will take time to consider the matter. No order will be made.