HUSBAND'S ACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 23 August 1928, Page 4

HUSBAND'S ACTION

SEEKS TO RECOVER MONEY FROM HIS WIFE. AUCKLAND, August 21, Before Mr Justice Reed, Charles Islington Subritzky said that in 1914 he handed over all his property to his wife under pressure, because he thought lie was dy-ing. His wife, Jennie Subritzky, recently obtained a separation order against him. Plaintiff now sought to recover the property and moneys he had given her.

Plaintiff said that he passed only standard 2. His wife did all his business. In 1913 he received' £1275 as a third share from the sale of a vessel. He was very ili, and his \vife received the money. When asked if she had hanked it in his name she replied : “No, I have been too smart for you.” The doctor told him that lie would not live more than six months, and, through his wife’s persistency, he made over to her all his property. Trouble began later when his wife was keeping a boardinghouse and his wife ordered him off the premises. He subsequently signed n statement of apology admitting that he had been drinking excessively, and had ill-treated his wife, and lie made over to bis wife all his property to do what she liked with. He could not read, and had no idea what was in the statement. He had not a penny left in the world.

When defendant, in evidence, said her husband was earning £o a month and had not paid lor the ring on her finger, the husband rose to deny this. He was removed from the Court and witness continued to give evidence. On one occasion Mr Justice Reed enjoined her not to be impertinent.

His Honour said that as the law stood if a husband made a gift to 1 is w';g the onus was very strongly vpon Idm if he attempted to show there was either an implied or equitable 'rust.. ’There was no evidence ot that kind, and it was perfectly clear the order asked for could not be made. The ease must be dismissed. . j Pie warned Mrs Subritzky, howe /er, j tlia; it would be essential for Per to d ) something for the support ot 1" r husband.