£6000 CLAIMED.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 December 1925, Page 1

£6OOO CLAIMED.

A QUEFR CASE. Uv TELEGRAPH —ntESS ASSN., COl’VRtfiHT AUCKLAND, December 7. At the Supreme Court, Robert Richard Holmes, an insurance agent, claimed £(>,008 from Alary Winifred Nicholas, on the grounds that between IPlii and 1921, the plaintiff advanced iimiifv to the defendant, who lived with him as his wife.

A counter claim was filed, that, if any money had been loaned, which was denied, it had been used for keeping the plaintiff, defendant, and the child of the parents; and that the upkeep involved £SOO per year; and also that the period mentioned was from October 30. 1017, to August 17th, 1925. Mr Nortlieroft. for the ,plaintiff, staled that twenty years ago, the parties left England as Mr and Mrs Holmes, plaintiff having taken the defendant under his protection, because she said her husband was illtroating her. Plaintiff, at that time, had about seven thousand pounds. They went to Australia ami then to New Zealand. Plaintiff became district superintendent at Christchurch until 1017. The parties then came io Auckland, lie became ill. The defendant took charge of his linancial affairs. Later he became suspicious of her conduct. She admitted that there was another man about. In September, 1021, she married a man named Xicliolls. She had entered into a business in which the plaintiff had a considerable sum of money, and she bail repudiated him as her husband. The defendant sought his aid because Johnstone had ill-treated her and she was receiving only 25s a week to keep the family. .Johnstone was a consumptive. When Nicholas came on the scene, the defendant said that she was sorry for plaintiff, as she did not know whether she wanted him or Nicholas.

In reply to Air Dickson, plaintiff said he now had about £2,000 in cash, as well as property at Christchurch. Defendant had always promised to marry when she received advice ol her husband's death.

Mr Dickson suggested that the Christchurch property had been bought in defendant’s name in order to provide lor the expected child.

Pin inti IV denied that the property was a gift, mu! sah! lie l>ncl temporarily placed it in the defendant’s name ill the event of his sudden death. When a. drapery business was bought in Ponsonhy, there was about C 1.000 worth of stock. This had improved to over [fliOOO in value as the result- of the plaintiff's earnings. Air Dickson said the defendant had drawn up a will when she was in hospital.

Plaintiff denied this, and said the defendant had never made a will to his knowledge. To his Honour, plaintiff said l here would have been an ultimate marriage and the money in the business would have been their joint properly. lie had always trusted his •‘wile.” To Mr Dickson : I have never threatened lo marry anyone else. If Mrs Nicholas was free to-day I would many her. Ilis lloimur said lliai Ihe onus was on |he defendant to prove that I lie monies were gills. Otherwise Ihe mailer would lie treated as a partnership, and then the defendant would he entailed to obtain wages for her management of i lie business. Mr Dickson sit km i r ted I bin Ihe plaintil!' had broken up Ihe defendant's home in England, and deserved no consideration. Ilis rionoui : I eamiol pimi-li him. Il his conduct was had, what was her conduct r .Mr Dickson contended the Noithcoie properiv had become the defendant's properl v as ii was exchanged tor the Christchurch gill. The plaintiff had now over £IOOO. Ilis Honour: Are you asking me to give judgment against a man because he had money in the hank? Mr Dickson said Ihe plaintiff had received all he was entitled 10. Recently the plaintiff had been so cruel in the defendant that she attempted In commit suicide. The defendant had not given an acknowledgement ol deld to planiiiff.

Counsel produced the defendant's will. The defendant, in evidence, said she was 111 years ol age when she came to New Zealand with the plninlill. The property in Chrislchttreh had been a gift to Inc to provide for the child. Any money reroived by her was a gift. The plain! ill had nol oll'crcd to marry her. hut he used to refer to other women whom he could marry. She had nvt Nicholas, woh was a tailor, and who had lost his wife, through illness, three years ago. 'To his Honour, the defendant said she married Johnstone when she was lo years old. She was an orphan and was married without anybody’s consent. Her age was given to the registrar as 21. She beard of Johnstone's death about four years ago. and she had told Holmes. Ah- Dickson submitted that as the relationship between the parties was immoral, tho alleged contract was nol enforcablc. i be case was adjourned until to-mor-row.