A HUSBAND’S PROPERTY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3885, 28 August 1928, Page 10

A HUSBAND’S PROPERTY.

TRANSFERRED TO WIFE. CLAIM FOR RETURN FAILS. AUCKLAND, August 21. Told by his doctors in 1915 that he had only six months to live, Charles Islington Subritzky, farmer and seaman, transferred his farm at Awanui to his wife. Instead of dying, however, he lived to tell the story in the Supreme Court this morning when he asked Mr Justice Reed through Mr Hall Skelton to give him back his property. Jessie Subritzky resisted the claim with the help of Mr Goulding. In evidence Subritzky said he had inherited 65 acres in the best part of Awanui. He married in 1900, and his wife lived on the* property while he went ' to sea in the schooner Greyhound. This vessel was sold, and he, as part owner, received £1275. Being seriously ill at the time, he sent his wife to town tq collect the money. She placed it iq her own account. He became gravely ill. and told his wife that he was shortly to die. She then, he asserted, induced him to make over the property to her. As he had only been schooled to Stan? dard 11. he left all his business affairs to his wife. Gradually recovering, wit? ness went to sea again on the Grey? hound as an employee of the Northern Steamship Company. Practically alj his earnings he sent to his wife. ATI the farm improvements had been carried out with his money. Up to the end of last year relations between them were cordial, he said. Later his wife eamq to live in Auckland, and kept a boarding? house. Witness was ordered out oih» day, and on returning he was confronted by a boarder, who told him that he would have to sign an apology. Witness signed an apology made out for him, iq which he learned that he had stated that he had been drinking excessively, that he had been cruel, that he had defamed her, and that he had made over to her his property to do what she liked with. Witness said he had no idea that these words were in the statement. He was warned by his wife to keep away from the house.

Cross-examined by Mr Goulding, witness admitted that his memory was not too good. Counsel produced a judgment by Mr W. R. Kean, S.M., given recently showing that Mrs Subritzky was granted a separation order iq consequence of certain cruelties. Three brothers of plaintiff gave evidence in support of the plainti’s ease. His Honor then remarked to Mr Hall Skelton that he had not made out the slightest case against the wife. The presumption in law was that the plaintiff had made a gift to his wife. The proceedings were coloured with amusing touches during the examination of two of the Messrs Subritzky; but it was not until Mr Hall Skelton began to question Mrs Subritzky that the fun started. Counsel's first question was like putting a flame of powder to a powder magazine. The witness poured forth a torrent of explanations, expostulations, and ejaculatior s, presumably in refutation of her husband’s evidence. His Honor had continually to remonstrate, and when she said to Mr Skelton : “ What stupid questions you ask,” his Honor rebuked her for impertinence. Two of the brothers Subritzky were heard in loud denials of the woman’s assertions, and had to be ushered from the court. When Mrs Subritzky was crossexamined she said that after their marriage she went “ to live with dead rats and cats. We lived there for five years,” she said. Her husband had not paid for the ring on her finger. His Honor said that as the law stood if a husband made a gift to his wife the onus was very strongly upon him if he attempted to show that there was either an implied or an equitable trust. There was no evidence of that kind, and it was perfectly clear the order asked for could not be made. The case must be dismissed. He warned Mrs Subritzky, however, that it would be essential for her to do something for the support of her husband.