SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1535, 3 September 1912, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards.) . SYRIANS-HUSBAND AND WIFE. UNHAPPY , HOIIK. DURESS ALLEGATION PKOVED. In Hie Supreme Court yesterday, before Sir. Justice Edwards, hearing was concluded in a civil action in which a Syrian proceeded against his wife to recover possession of a house and taction in Crosby Terrace. The parlies to the action were Eamnnos Kuirooz, fancy poods dealer, of Wcslport, plaintiff, and Mary Kairooz, wife of Kamanos Kairooz, defendant. •

Sir. P. J. O'ltegan appoared for tin , plaintiff, while Sir. C. H. Jlorisou (instructed by Mr. V. It. Meredith) appeared for the defendant. Details of the claim and defence were published in Saturday's issue. It appeared that Raiuanos Kairooz was the registered proprietor of tho property, but his. wife declared that sh'o was the beneficial owner, and further stated that on December 27, 1901, she was compelled, through duress on the part, of her husband (tlie plaintiff Uamanos Kairooz) to sign a tran.-i'er of the properly to him'against her will. Particulars of the alleged duress were a= follow:—On.divers dates, between May 17, 1904, and December 27, 1901. Plaintiff (Ramanos'Kairooz) threatened to shoot tho defendant (Mary Kairooz). He threatened her life with a razor. He threatened to throw an iron eafe on her. ■ • • ■ Be struck her. He chased her out of the hou?e. He seized her violently by the throat and hair.

These- allegations of duress were denied by Ramanos Kaironz, and when the case came on for hearing on Friday, it was agreed that counsel for the defendant (the wife) should open. When His Court adjourned on Friday, the evidence-in' support of hoi , case and portion of that in support of the husband's case, had been called.

Further evidence in support of the husband's ca c e was Riven yesterday by Kairooz hiny-.elf, and by J. Brnoln, hawker; Geo. Bowzaid, draper; Fndnlla Khouri, fancy gtmds dealer; G«o. Gustcen; hawker and Ci. Becjichi, hawker.

His Honour expressed himself as satisfied ■ that, as far as the duress alleged by Mary Kairooz was concerned, that liad been proved. He had no hesitation whatever in arriving at the conclusion that the wife had been forced to sign tho transfer. It was a question of fact. That being so, the onus was upon Mr. O'Rogan (for the husband) of proving that tho wifo was really -a trustee for the husband when tho purchase of tho house was made. Argument was then heard, and his Honour reserved decision.