AGENT AND MISTRESS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 8 December 1925, Page 5

AGENT AND MISTRESS.

A CLAIM FOR MONEY. ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN LENT. ('By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Mon da y. ■At the Supreme Court, Robert Richard Holmes, insurance agent, claimed £6068 from .Mary Winifred Nicholas on the ground that, between 11)16 and 1924, plaintiff advanced money to defendant, who lived with him as his wife. A counter-claim was tiled that, if any money had been loaned, which was denied, it had been used for keeping the 2>laintiff, defendant and a child; that the upkeep involved £SOO per year, and that the period was from October 30th, 1917, to August 17th, 1925. Counsel for plaintiff stated that 20 years ago the parties left England as Mr and Mrs Holmes, plaintiff having taken defendant under his protection because she had a husband who was illtreating her. Plaintiff at that time had about £7OOO. They went to Australia and then to New Zealand. He became district superintendent in Dunedin of an insurance company, and later held a similar position in Christchurch until 1917. The parties then came to Auckland. He became ill and defendant took charge of his financial affairs. Later he became suspicious of her conduct, and she admitted that there was another man. About September, 1924, she married a man named Nieho’lls., She had entered into a business, in which plaintiff had a considerable sum of money, and she had repudiated him as her husband. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that defendant sought his aid because Johnston ill-treated her, and she was receiving only 25s a week to keep the family. Johnston, was a consumptive. When Nicholas come on the scene defendant said that she was sorry for plaintiff, as she did not know whether she wanted him or Nicholas. In reply to Mr Dickson, plaintiff said that he now had about £2OOO in cash, as well as property in Christchurch. Defendant had always promised to marry him when she received advice of her husband’s death. Mr Dickens suggested that the Christchurch property had been bought in plaintiff’s name in order to provide for an expected child. Plaintiff denied that the property was a gift, and saul that he had temporarily placed it in defendant’s’ mime in order that she would be provided for in the event of his sudden death. When the drapery business was bought in Ponsonby thoio was about £IOOO worth of stock. This ha improved to over £6OOO in value as the result of the use of plaintiff ’s earnings. To Mr Dickson: I have,never threatened to marry anyone else. If Mis. Nicholas was free to-day 1 would marry her. His Honour said that the onus was on defendant to prove that the moneys were gifts; otherwise the matter should be treated as a partnership and then defendant would be entitled to obtain wages for her management of the business. Air Dickson submitted that plaintiff had broken up defendant’s home in England, and deserved no consideration. His Honour: I cannot, punish him. If his conduct was bad, what was her conduct? t Hi- Dickson, said that plaintiff had been so cruel to defendant that she attempted to commit suicide. Defendant, in evidence, said that she was 19 years of age when she came to New Zealand with plaintiff. The property in Christchurch had been a gift to provide for her child. Aliy money received by her was a gift. Plaintiff had not offered to marry her, but used to refer to other women whom he could marry. She had met Nicholas, who was a tailor, and had lost his wife through illness three years ago. To His Honour, defendant said that she married Johnstone when she uas ]5 years old. She was an orphan, and was married without anybody’s consent. Her age was given to the registrar as 21. She heard of Johnstone’s death about four years ago, and had told Holmes. Mr Dickson submitted that as the relationships between the parties were immoral, the alleged contract was not enforceable. The ease was adjourned until tomorrow.