WIFE V. HUSBAND

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 131, 26 February 1921, Page 8

WIFE V. HUSBAND

QUESTION OF PROPERTY OAVNERSHII’.

In the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking, Sarah Ireson, tailoress, of AA ellingtou, sued Edward James Ireson, roadman, of Dargaville, her husband, for the return of moneys said to be due. Air. p. R. Hoggard appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. G. AVateon for the defendant. In the statement of claim it was alleged that on September 15, 1918, the defendant, by threats of physical vio lenco, compelled the plaintiff to sign an authority to sell a house property bs longing to her in Main Street, Greytown, the terms of the sale being left, to his discretion. The plaintiff in_ the thority agreed to accept .£5O, “thu amount of her interest in the property, whatever price it should realise. H was alleged that the defendant, after the authority had been signed, deleted the reference to the £'so interest, and thereby obtained, on October 11, 1918, from Messrs. Tate and Thompson, solicitors. the sum. of £5O. It was alleged, also, that the defendant had failed to pay tho said sum to the plaintiff. Similar threats of physical violence were, alleged relative to the signing on ber 3, 1918, of another authority, which instructed Messrs. Tate-and Thompson to pay to the defendant all moneys duo on the sale of the property in Alain Street, less £75, the plaintiff’s share of the cottage. It was alleged that by the last authority tho defendant obtained the sum of £167 9s. lid., which ho had failed to pay to the plaintiff. The third cause of action was based on n claim by the plaintiff that the defendant had converted to his own use her piano, by selling the zame, the piano being valued at £75. The plaintiff claimed in respect of the first cause of action £5O, of tho second £167 9s. lid., and of the third £75; and asked for compensation In respect of all three causes. « The statement of defence dented all the allegations, and contended that the property, in each case belonged to tho defendant. Evidence was given by tath parties, after which His Honour reserved his decision.