LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1533, 31 August 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. (Before his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards.) SYRIAN'S UNHAPPY HOME. CIVIL.ACTION.' RAMANOS KAIBOOZ AND WIFE. . i Details of domestic unhappiness in the . life of a Syrian family were unfolded during tlio hearing of a civil action in 1 tlio Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Edwards. The parties to tho action were Ramanos Kairooz, fancy goods dealer, of Westport, plaintiff; and Mary Kairooz, wife of Ramanos Kairooz, defendant. Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. C. B. Morison (instructed by Mr. V. R. Meredith) appeared for the defendant. Ramanos Kairooz and the Property. In the statement of claim it was set out that since January 27,-1905; Ramanos Kairooz had been the registered proprietor of a. section and house in Crosby Terrace. On or about the month of July, 1911, Mary Kairooz broke into, and entered this land and the buildings erected thereon. Sho has refused, and still refuses to leavo the land and buildings. By, reason of her conduct, Kamanos Kairooz had lost the rents and profits arising out of the land. He now claimed possession of the premises and .£4O damages. The Version of Mary Kairooz. By way of defence, Mary Kairooz admitted ■ that Ramanos Kairooz (her husband) was tho registered proprietor of the land, but stated that she was the sole beneficial owner of it, and for that reason.she refused to yield possession. Sho now denies that he has or ever had (at law or in equity) any right to the rents or profits. Further, she states that on December 27, 1904, she was compelled through duress on _ the part of her- husband (the plaintiff Kamanos Kairooz) to sign a transfer of the property to him against her will. Particulars of the alleged duress are us followOn divers dates between May 17, 1904, and December 27, 1904, Plaintiff (Ramanos Kairooz) threatened to shoot the defendant (Mary Kairooz). Ho threatened her life with a razor. Ho threatened to throw on iron safe on her. He struck her. Ho chased her out of tho house. Ho seized her violently by the throat and bair. ■ • These acts were (it was alleged) committed to compel the transfer of the property, and slie being in fear of bodily harm and Joss of her life, signed the transfer against lier will. On May 2, 1900, sho caused a caveat, to bo lodged in the ofiico of tho District land Registrar at Wellington, preventing Ramanos Kairooz from dealing with the land. • Wife's Counter-Claim and Husband's Defence. A counter-claim was also filed by the (.Mary Kairooz) asking that tho memorandum if transfer (whereby sho purported to transfer tho land to plaintiff) should bo declared void, and that tiie register should be amended accordingly. As a. defence to tho counter-claim, the plaintiff liamanos Kairooz denied that his wife was tho beneficial owner, of the property. He .-aid that the money with which tho property was purchased belonged exclusively to his estate. Further,. 1 Mary Kairooz had been guilty;, of Mich laches as in equity disentitled her to relief. Jle denied the allegations :of duress as set out in the statement of defence. Back History of the Lawsuit. The action wis first mentioned before tho Court some considerable time ago, when Ramanos Kairooz sought to procuro the removal of a caveat lodged by his wife to prohibit his dealing with the section of land in Crosby Terrace, Wellington. It was then alleged by plaintiff that, even though tho title was in his wife's name, tho property had bsen purchased .with his money. Subsequently the property had been transferred to him, and then (lie caveat had been lodged, and it was stated that the purchase was a part of Mrs. Kairooz's estate. Mrs. Kairooz made an affidavit, .foptrpyerting' Iheso statements. Plaintiff was at that, time willing to have the dispute settled .by. an ordinary action. The matter was therefore ad- | journod.to enable the parties to proceed in this manner. In the meantime, the caveat had not been removed. The Proceedings Yesterday, When the ease was called yesterday, it was agreed that counsel for defendant should open, as tho onus was on defendant to prove the allegations in the statement of defence. Mr. Morison opened verv briefly, stating that he proposed to call evidence to prove fraud, fear, and force. Witnesses for the defence were: Joseph Kairooz, son of the parties; Walter Kairooz, son of the parties; Annie Kairooz, daughter of the parties; Mary Kairooz, the defendant; and John Joseph Fanning, land agent. i Mr. O'Regan then proceeded to call witnesses in support of the plaintiff's case. They included Douglas Jackson, solicitor, of Wellington; R. H. Wedde, solicitor, of Waipawa; and Ramanos KaiTooz, tho plaintiff. At 4.30 p.m. there was still £ good deal of evidence to be tendered, and the further hearing was adjourned until 10.30 aim. on Monday.

FRIENDLY SOCIETY BENEFITS. CANNOT BE CLAIMED FOE DEBT. Moneys accruing to a deceased person's estate from frieiidly society benefits are not liable for payment of the debts of deceased? This was the effect of a decision of Mr. Justice Sim, delivered at the Supreme Court yesterday morning. The parties to the action wcto Robert Kilpatrick. grocer, and Richard Tingey, oil and colour merchant, both of Wellington (executors of the will of the late 'William Johnson, builder), plaintiffs, and Louisa Twyman Johnson, widow, of Wellington, defendant. Sir. A. Gray appeared for the plaintiffs, while Mr. W. 1\ Ward'appeared for the defendant. Deceased's widow (the defendant in . the action) was sole ljeneficiary under the will. By reason of deceased's membership of Excelsior Lodge, 11, U.A.0.D., the sum of ,£l2O became payable to plaintiffs and defendant as executors of. the will. Claims totalling .£sllß lis. lid. had been made bv eleven creditors against the estate, and the sum of\Cl2o, nbove-montion-ed, was the only as-:et, if it couid lie so called. Hence the question was submitted to the Court as to whether this sum was liable for payment of the debts. His Honour's decision was to tlie effect that the money was not available for payment of debts, owing by the deceased, but that it was available for the payment nf funeral and testamentary expenses. An order was made accordingly, tho costs of both parties to lie paid out of the estate. IN DIVORCE. In the Divorce Court yesterday morning, before Mr. Justice Edwards, Emily Moir sought dissolution of her marriage with Samuel William Moir on the ground of misconduct. Mr. T. 31. Wilford appeared for tho petitioner, no defence having been Sled. l-'rim the evidence it appeared Hint the parties were married at- Timaru on May I, moo, and lived together for some yeans at Timaru, Wellington, and Duncdin. There were two children of the marring?, in July last, respondent was manager r-f the Clyde Quay Hotel, and vliil- petitioner was absent in Tinv.irii re.-ii'mdoiit bar] been guilty i,f misomlnr.i. A decree nisi wns grwited. to be ma.de absolute in three months' time.