SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1925, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTING . AT HOKITIKA. MONDAY, .MARCH 23d. (Before bis Honour, Justice McGregor" AFTKRNOON SITTING. The Court resumed at 2 p.m. A -MARITAL DIFFERENCE, "William Kerr v. Catherine Kerr suit for statement oi" accounts in connection with alleged trust accounts between husband and wife. Mr Eteocli for ulaintifi", Mr .Murdoch for defendant. William. John Kerr deposed be resid-

0(1 at Hokitika and was an engineer. "Was married on 19th December, 1912, to defendant. Then had a bank account in his own name, £.OO odd. Gave his wages to his wife till he went to camp. In August, 1914, the account was transferred so that it could he more easily dealt with. It was not a eift to his wife, who received Is per day of his pay, and ho received Is. Cume hack in October, 1015, and started work on 4th November at Greenstone. Gave his cheques to his wife. Continued the account in the hank tor convenience sake, as lie was seldom at home and his wife paid all the bills. \fter ti or 7 mouths went to Utinu. Always gave his pay to his wife up to a few months ago. Engaged in a shipping venture in 1919, for 12 months. Always had access to his wife’s hooks. When he wanted any money he asked his wife for it as his right and there was never any quibbling about it. In 1924 as there was practically enough to buy a home, it was decided to open

aurt'iCT account in his own name. Invested in a boat in 192.4. Clso. In 1929 he told his wife to get a home m town ; that was prior to his going away to bring a vessel here. When he came hack his wife told him she had'got a house which he saw and appreciated. t*p to last September he thought the property was his own, hut he was then told hv his sister-in-law that he had no interest in the place and his wife confirmed this statement. Tie made enquiries and found his wife’s sister was the mortgagee. Till then had no idea she was interested in the property. Was told by the agent who sold the property that his wife had signed a declaration under the Married Moman’s Property Act. that the money was her own. When he spoke to his wife about it she said it was her own money. Cp to this she had never claimed the money as her own. Tie spent very little on himself. For years he neither drank nor smoked, (hit what money he required Iron! his wife. Paid all his earnings to his wife as his hanker. Did not know the Savings Hank Account had been opened for months. ITis wife then said it was because they were paying a higher rate of interest. His wife had no means of her own.

To Mr Murdoch—His wile had not supplemented his earnings by- sewing and other means. He knew that his wife had been keening her sister and another as hoarders and that he had paid for their keep. Me remembered the evidence in .the Magistrate’s Court when his wife was granted a separation order on the grounds of persistent cruelty. He had never been guilty of cruelty to his wife. He had heard Miss Dixon say he came home drunk, hut. she would sav anything. It was not true. When he married he went to live for S years with his wile at Miss Dixon’s. I p to the date ol the Magistrate's Court case Miss Dixon lived for portion of the week at his house. The house cost C5!12. She also bought furnishings. He did not suggest the mortgage given hv his

wife to her sister was not a fair deal. He handed his earnings to his wile to keep as his trustee. Me got such moneys as he required from his wife. He bail no idea the house was mortgaged. lie-examined —He had thought there was enough money in the hank to pay for the house and his wife did not tome to him and tell him she was mortgaging the home. I lie man referred to bv Mr Murdoch was one whom he had given a hiding to and that was the cause of the lirst row. He did not know what hoard Miss nixon naul. 'This was the < axe tor the plaintiff. Mr Murdoch led evidence as lollo.vs: Catherine Kerr deposed she was the defendant and her husband the phiinti/f. It was not true that her husband gave her the money he earned to save up to buy a home. Her husband from time to time gave her part of Ids wages. Her hut-baud never at any time gave her any money to put awav in the hank in her name for hint.

paid into her husband's account at

his request' about leu entries therein, 'i'li ■ other money her husband gave her to pav expenses and run the home. He never at any time told her to hold tire balance as trustee. The first Cb she hanked in her name, which her husband gave to her to put in her own egeniiut. Ollier moneys she paid in were from moneys she earned herself. Flic got up to Cl a day for sewing. Details were given ol various payments on behalf of her husband. She drew ClIlO to pay a deposit on a home. None of the moneys paid into her account wore amounts given her hv her husband as a trust account. Before they married her husband said ho did not drink, hut she Infer found that lie did drink to excess.

To Mr Eleock—She earned about C'-5 a month for sowing when she was at South Spit. When her husband was working on the boat and not earning much, she often drew money Iron) her account to pay household expenses Tim majority of the amounts paid into her account iiinv have been a portion of her husband's earnings though she was earning herself at that time. Mr Murdoch proceeded to re-exam-ine in connection with the treatment of Urn wife by her husband, hut Ids Honour said this was not necessary as he could not go past the decision of the Magistrate in the Court below. Ill's Honour in giving judgmenT slated (his was a very unusual case brought by a man against his wife. They were married in 1912 and in 1921 a separation order was made against the husband by the Magistrate, on the grounds of persistent cruelty. Then plaintiif brought the present action, lie claimed first that a niece of land with a house on it was bought by the wife on trust for him. The only evidence in support was his own. Imt this was flatly contradicted by his wife. He was not prepared to accept the husband's. The second claim was that in addition to the land, the husband asked for such sum as may he found to he due hv the wife ns trustee for the husband. The plaintiff called no evidence to support his own and his wife denied his evidence. There was no corroboration. Tie would give judgment for defendant, with costs ns per scale on a 9300,action, the registrar to settle the disbursements and witnesses expenses. This concluded the business and the Court rose at 1.5 11. in.