ACTION AGAINST FORMER WIFE

Southland Times, Issue 23693, 16 December 1938, Page 11

ACTION AGAINST FORMER WIFE

CLAIM FOR RETURN OF JEWELLERY HUSBAND’S CASE FAILS IN MAGISTRATE’S COURT (United Press Association) AUCKLAND, December 15. An elderly retired farmer, Hallyburton. Johnstone, proceeded against his former wife, Mary Mitchell Johnstone, in the Magistrate’s Court claiming possession of jewellery valued at £l9O. The articles referred to were a diamond cluster ring, valued at £l2O, a pearl and diamond necklace valued at £5O, and a diamond ring valued at £2O. Mr W. R. McKean, S.M., presided. Mr Robinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Schramm for the defendant. It was stated that the parties were married in January 1935, and separation and maintenance orders were made in favour of the defendant in September 1937. The orders were the subject of an appeal for maintenance, the order being confirmed, after which the plaintiff instituted proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree. Settlement for .permanent maintenance was effected, the plaintiff agreeing to pay £3OO. The plaintiff gave evidence that he gave his wife rings soon after they were married. After three months she returned them to him with the wedding ring. A fortnight later she begged to have them back and he gave them to her. He had not seen them since, nor had he seen the necklace which he only lent to her about the time, he returned the rings. She left him in February 1937 and took all the articles with her, but she refused to heed his demands to return them. The witness said the diamond cluster ring cost £2OO, and he had it for about 15 years before giving it to his wife. The necklace cost £l5O in England. The second ring belonged to his wife, and he said he would not have given it to anyone. The defendant, Mary Mitchell Johnstone, said the only jewellery she received from the plaintiff was an engagement ring and a necklace. He gave her a ring the day they were married while they were going to the registry office.

“He told me to put it on and never take it off,” the witness continued. “He never asked for its return, and I .kept it on until I left him. He called it an engagement ring, which he put on before the wedding ring.” The witness said the plaint <> made a gift of the necklace to her soon after

they were married. She wore it once before he got it back and she had not seen it since. He refused to return it to her. The defendant said she met plaintiff two months before they were married and she served as his housekeeper for two weeks before the wedding. Referring to correspondence between the parties’ solicitors at the time of the maintenance settlement, the Magistrate said the matter of the. jewellery was not raised until after the cheque for settlement had been paid over. It was regrettable that all the matters had not been settled at one time, but the plaintiff was entirely to blame. He had had it in his hands to insist on the return of the jewellery before the payment, but that was not done. “Of one thing there is no doubt,” said the Magistrate. “The diamond cluster ring and necklace were gifts in the first place by the plaintiff to the defendant. The onus was on the ’plaintiff to show that his wife presented the ring to him, and that she again accepted it by way of a loan. That would seem an extraordinary position, and I am satisfied it is not what took place.” Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs.