HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Wairarapa Age, 16 March 1922, Page 3

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

CLAIM AND COUNTriit-CLAIM. Al the Aiagastrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr S. L. P. Free, S.M., Mrs N. Gandy proceeded against her ’ (husband, Norman Gandy (1) to recover possession of a piano and furniture, and (2) to obtain judgment io! UIG money lent. Defendant oounter-elaiimed £lB, proceeds of the sale of a billiard taiblle. Mr R. McKenzie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr R. K. Jackson for defendant. Airs Gandy said that when they left their High street home elhe sold some furniture to Mrs Hourigan, to tlie value of £l3. She cashed the cheque at the bank, and gave the cash to her husband. When they left their Cornwall street house there was £66 owing to the Borough Council by her husband. After he 'had bought the High street house he had not sufficient to pay tliie amount, and sh< lent him the £66. Wlhen he sold the High street house h e repaid her £63. This £3 owing and the £l3 for the furniture made up the £l6 claimed. She handed her husband the £l3 to mind, as she did not have her bank book. With regard to the piano, the instrument was purchased in November, 1914. The actual payments of instalments were paid by her husband. The household furniture, billiard table, and piano were insured in 1918 in the Royal Exchange Office in her name. Witness gave her husband the money to pay the premiums. The billiard table was purchased before they came to Master-ton, witness supplying half the money; When they started housekeeping, the account for the furniture came in, and witness paid it out of her own money. Some was sold when they left Cornwall street, and the money obtained was used in purchasing floor-coverings and furniture for High street. After they sold the High street house, the furniture was stored in a. cottage a.t Waingaiwa. After witness was separated from her husband, witness asked Fly and Young to remove the furniture to a house in Dixon street. Her hueband went to the carters and told them to keep back the linoleums and carpets, and not to deliver to her the piano, the mangle and lawn-mower. These articles were all her own property, and were worth about £lO3. When the billiard table was advertised for sale, her husband said she could have the money realised. Witness accordingly collected the cheque (£18) when the table was sold. Her huslbanri had found half the money for the purchase of the billiard table. Mir Jackson: How did you come to own the carpets in the High street house?—The money from the sale of the Cornwall street articles was used in their purchase, and my husband' gave me the carpets. " . i Norman Gandy said that when he' and his wife were married in 1907 I the furniture was paid for when ;t‘

was bought. Witness bought the, dining-brilliard-tabie with his oiwn 1 money entirely. The table was sold by a. dealer, and when witness went for his money he was told that Mrs Gandy had collected it. He had not authorised her to collect it. Witness admitted that he had got the £l6 claimed by his wife, but in reality it was as much his as her’s, as it was household money. The carpets in High street were bought with the house, and were included in the purchase money. Witness did nor. receive ’ any of the money his wife got fo -I the sale of the goods from the Corn- ■ wall street house. When tire piano ; was bought witness had in mind going to the war, and as it was to be for the home it was put in his wife'-

name; Witness paid for the piano When witness gave his wife a. cheque, for £63. he explained to her that £5O I was part repayment for the drainnge I loan, and £l3 for Mrs Hourigun’s I money. He told her he would pay the balance of the loan when he got the money. The furniture was insured in witness’s name till about I 1917, wlhen he had it changed into his wife’s niaime because he thought > he would be going to the war. To Mr Jackson: When his wife kept boairders—she sometimes had i two and sometimes three—he gave i her £5 a. month and paid the bills, i but she kept the profit®. ! Mr Free , said it was quite dear tihlat the piano was purchased by Gandy on behalf of his wife and had always been her property. The linoleum and floor coverings in the house in High street were purchased by the husband, and there was no evidence of a. gift to till wife; the same applied to the mangle and lawn mower, and Mrs Gandy could only succeed in her claim by bringing a preponderence of evidence that a gift had been made. The billiard table had been the property of defendant. Judgment would be for defendant on the coun-ter-claim for £lB. and for plaintiff on her claim of £l6. The piano would remain the property of plaintiff, defendant retaining the other articles mentioned in the claim.

On the application of Mr Jackson. Ivs Wcrsihip fixed at £lO 10s'the security for an appeal with reference to the ownership of the piano.