RYAN’S TRUSTEES V. MARY FORD, ALIAS RYAN.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3774, 13 May 1885, Page 2

RYAN’S TRUSTEES V. MARY FORD, ALIAS RYAN.

Messrs White, Smithson and Raymond yesterday received a communication from their Melbourne agents stating that this action bad been tried in the Supreme Court of Victoria, before Mr Justice Williams and a special jury of twelve, and after occupying two days, resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs, the New Zealand Trustees, for the full amount. This decides the question so far as Mrs Ryan is concerned. The conflicting claims of the Adelaide and Hew Zealand Trustees now remain to be fought out. Full particulars of the case are given in the “Melbourne Argus," from which we take the following Mr 0. A. Smyth and Mr Hamilton for the plaintiffs; Mr McDermott and Mr Forlonge for the defendants. The plaintiffs, as assignee of the insolvent estate of one Patrick Ryan, of New Zealand sought to recover from (he defendant Mary Ford a sum of £6OO as part of the insolvent estate. The case for the plaintiffs was that about two years ago Ryan had absconded from Hew Zealand. The defendant bad lived with him as bis wife for about 15 years, and bad several children by him. She and Ryan came to this country, bnt they were arrested'here at the instance of the creditors. The defendant had brought here with her varioss sums of money, which were deposited by her in different banks, amongst others the sum of £6OO, which was the subject of this action. This sum she bad deposited in the London Chartered Bank in the name of Mary- Ford. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was the wife 9f Ryan, that the property was his, and that she therefore bad no claim to it, and that it ought to be given for distribution among his creditors. The defendant maintained that the property was hers. The evidence of several witnesses taken in New Zealand, as to the proceedings in insolvency there, and as to the relations between the defendant and Ryan, were read. The defendant stated that she was born in Ireland ; that when she was a girl she went to America in company with her annt, whose name was Leonard. Her. own name was Leonard. In America she was married to a man named Ford, a farmer. Ford rented a farm of abont 3000 acres, for which he paid £IOO a year. The farm was about two miles from New York. Some time after her marriage, her husband being killed by a fall from bis horse, she realised bis property—about £7oo—and took it back with her to Ireland. She remained in that country a few months, and then came to Victoria. About 16 years ago she. was at Ballarat, where she met Ryan, who was a cattle dealer. She lived with him as bis wife, but was not married to him, and she had five children by him. She had between £6OO and £7OO, which she sometimes lodged on deposit and sometimes lent. Ryan knew nothing about this money. They afterwards went to Brisbane, to Adelaide, again to Ireland, and ultimately to Timaro, New Zealand. She always took the money with her, and Ryan knew nothing abont it. She brought this and abont £1,400 of other money from Timaru to Melbourne about two years ago. The £1,400 she had logded in the savings bank, and the £6OO now sued for she lodged with the London Chartered Bank. Mr Smyth in reply to this, submitted that the defendant’s story was iooredib'e and that the property really belonged to Ryan, and that the trustees of his estate were entitled to it. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.