JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 May 1924, Page 4

JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASE.

GISBORNE. Alny 20. An unusual case came up in the AI si—gistrate’s Court to-day concerning Francis P. Ilrady, who was l.alsour candidate for the Eangitikei election in 1022. Ki’ngitikei Motors. Ltd., sought to recover on a judgment summons the sum of £3B 10s (id from Brady. In evidence, Brady said that in 1022 lie was an hotelkeeper, at l’aiigitikei. where In- incurred the debt sued for. In December that year, lie discovered, he alleged, that his wife had been unfaithful to him, and after giving her power of 'attorney over money and land titles he left for Australia. At that time lie was worth between live and six thousand pounds. Since then his brother died, and lie returned to Xew Zealand, engaged on a salary and comimssioii basis, earning £6 weekly. Though separated from his wife, lie volifnttiiTy oont ributild £3 a week towards the maintenance of the children in Wellington, which left him only £3 for himself, lie bad debts aggregating £l3O, which he. was endeavouring to pay olf. He did not know that judgment had been obtained against him till be returned to the Dominion. Tn cross-examination, defendant said that when he found that his wife was unfaithful he decided to leave her, and gave her power of attorney over money and lands, on condition that she paid all his debts. She went to the bank, and had these transferred to her own inline. There were other amounts owing to him which lie had been unable to collect. For instance, bis brother since killed, owed £1(100, but this bad been wiped off. When lie returned from Australia bis wife summoned him on mainteiiaiiee. and guardianship order? in Wellingte.li, but "hen the .Magistrate heard the facts, and that his wife had £3OOO. he declined to make an order. Subsequently defendant consented to allow his wife to have the children, and contributed £3 weekly towards their keep. In answer to a question, defendant .said his wife still had the money—that was why the magistrate at Wellington refused a maintenaeo order. Defendant said the money originally belonged to his wife, who received it from the estate of her father, a wealthy sheen-farmer down Wanganui way. The £3OOO had been accumulated by defendant as a result of tbo hotel business and speculation. IL was money ho made with her money.

Tn reply lo a question, defendant said he paid the Government no gilt duty. Counsel contended it was therefore not a gift. Tlie c;r-o was adjourned sine tlie.