SYRIAN FAMILY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1561, 3 October 1912, Page 4

SYRIAN FAMILY.

THE HUSBAND'S CLAIM UPSET. BELIEF GRANTED. Mr. Justice Edwards yesterday ilclivore.l ft reserved decision in tho Supreme Court, bearing on a case, licard at the lust civil sessions, in which disclosures of domestic infelicity \yere Hie outstanding fevures The parties to thtt action wore Ramanns luiirooz, fancy good's dealer, of Westjmrt, plaintiff; and Mary Kairooz, vile of llamanos Kairooz,' defendant. .At the hearing Mr. P. J. O'Regnn appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. 0. B. Morison (instructed by Mr. V. R. Meredith) appeared for the defendant. Ramanos Kairooz and the Property. In the statement of claim it wts petont thnt since January 'J7, 1900, Uamanos Kairooz liad been tho registered proprietor of a section and house in Crosby Terrace. On or about thn month of July, 1911, Mary Kairooz broka into, and entered t):ls land and tho buildings erected tntieoii, She has refused, and still refuses to leave the land and buildings, By reason cf her conduct, Ratnanoe Kairooz bod. lost tl'« [ mats and orouti aihina out ai the lend.

Ho now diiiiurd possession of the piomises, and XiO (lciningi-s. How Mary Kairooz Saw Matters. By way of ilefencL', Mavy Kiirooz i«l----mitted that Kninanos KairooK <ker husband) was tho registered proprietor of tho Iniul, • but MuU'u that sho was the solo beneficial owner of it, mid for 'hut ioason she rtfiiwd to yield possession. Slw rum denUn that he has ur ever Ltd (at law or in equity) un.v right ti> lhe li'iits or profits. Furth'-r, she, states that . n Decemlier 27. 1901, ?he u'sis compelled tliroußh duress on. lhe part of her husband (th(! plaintiff Uamauoa Kairooz) to aißiv a transfer of Uie property to him against her will. Particulars of tho ;.l(lim , nro as follow: —On divers dates between Jlay 17, IWI4, and Ueci-in-ber 1!7, 1904, Plrtinlilt (Hamiinos Kairooz) tlirfatennl to shoot the defendant (Mary Kairooz). lie threatened her life with a razor, lie. threatened to throw an iron wife on her. Hβ struck her. Tie chased her out of the house. Ho seized her violently by tho throat and hair. These acts wero (it was alleged) committed to compel tho transfer of the , property, and slio being in fear of bodily harm and loss of her life, finned the transfer against her will. On May :i, 190U, she caused a caveat to be lodged in the oflico of tho District Laud Registrar at Wellington, preventing Kaniunos Kairooz from dealing with the land. A counterclaim was also tiled by the defendant (Mary Kairooz) asking that tho memorandum of transfer (whereby (die purported to transfer tho land to plaintiff) should bo declared void, and that the register should bo ameuded accordingly. As a defence to tho counter-claim, tho plaintiff Hamanos Kairooz denied that his wife was the beneficial owner of tho property, lie said that the money with which tho property was purchased Ix , - lonped exclusively to his estate. Further, Mary- Kairooz had been guilty of such laches as- in equity disentitled her to relief. Ho denied the allegations of duress as set out in the statement of defence. Original History of the Lawsuit. The action was first mentioned beforo the Court some_ considerable time ago, when Kamanos Kairooz sought to procure tho 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 the title was in his wife's name, the property had been purchased with his money. Subsequently the property had been transferred to him, and then the caveat had been lodged, and it was stated that the purchase was a part of Mrs. Kairooz's estate. Mrs, Kairooz mode an affidavit controverting these statements. Plaintiff was at that time .willing to have the dispute settled l»y an ordinary action. The matter was therefore adjourned to enable the parties to proceed in this manner. In the meantime, the caveat had not been removed. Tho Finding of the Court. The hearing, which took place last month, lasted two days, and at the conclusion his Honour reserved decision, but stated that he had then arrived at the conclusion that duress had been proved. He also made it clear that he did not place, any Telianco on much of the evidence tendered by witnesses for tho plaintiff, Itamanos Kairooz. In delivering judgment yesterday, his Honour reviewed 'at considerable length the facts and the law bearing on the snbyct, and held that the defendant (Mary ICairooz) was entitled to the relief asktfil for. He, therefore, gave judgment for the defendant on the claim, and also on the counter-claim, making a <!ccp:o granting the relief asked for. Costs on tho claim wero given as on a claim for .£7T;i, with allowance for extra day. Costs of preparing and filing , tho counter-claim were also allowed.