A MAN WITH MANY WIVES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 31, 6 February 1914, Page 2

A MAN WITH MANY WIVES.

THE LATE BENJAMIN ENROTH. A MATRIMONIAL TANGLE. At the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, on Wednesday, Clara Berridge, of New Plymouth, widow fwho until comparatively recently believed herself to be the widow of Benjamin Enroth), applied for an order to set aside a transfer from herself to Enroth of property which is now being administered by the Public Trustee as his executor, given when she’ believed herself to be his wife. Mr J. H. Quilliam represented Mrs Berridge, and Mr A. H. Johnstone appeared for the Public Trustee. The facts of the case were outlined by Mr Quilliam. In 1908 Mrs Porridge, then a married woman, resident in New Plymouth, purchased two acres of land, subject to a mortgage of £6OO. Her husband was then alive, but was in delicate health. She kept a nursinghome as a means ot livelihood. Subsequently her husband died. In October, 1906, ii nian calling himself Benjamin Enroth came'as a convalescent'to her home. It was subsequently disclosed, continued counsel, that his true name was Ebenezer jThorne. He had transposed the letters of his surname so as to read “Enroth, ’ and taken the name of Benjamin. Later he made her a proposal of marriage, which she declined. He left her homo, but continued to write to her. He came back again, and they were married. The certificate of marriage described him as “Benjamin Enroth, aged 61 years, a settler and a widower.” After the marriage Enroth went to Sydney, ostensibly to see his daughter. Before leaving he gave his new wife £2OO. He returned in six weeks’ time, and obtained from her not only the £200; hut another £IOO on top of it. He also sold her cattle and furniture, and kept the proceeds. Six months after the marriage Enroth proposed that he should build two houses on the land owned by Mrs Berridge, and that to that end she should transfer the property to him, on the understanding' that he should by will bequeath it all to her. On September 27 a transfer was accordingly signed, the consideration stated being “natural love and affection.” At the same time Enroth‘made a will bequeathing to the plaintiff all his New Zealand property, which he said was worth about £ll,000. The property transferred was still subject to the marriage of £6OO. Two years after the marriage with Mrs Berridge, Enroth built two houses on the land. He paid off the £6OO mortgage but borrowed £745. ; fn 1908'Mrs Berridge and Enroth wont to’ Auckland, to meet the latter’s daughter,* Mrs 'Scholl. ' Enroth 'and 7 < jit x ' • 1 I , . 1 \ i - the daughter had a'dispute, and the ■laughter, .said to'Mrs Berridge :“Yqu are not my father s wife. ‘He has another wife in Brisbane.” The plaintiff was much upset, but Enroth made a plausahle excuse, which she believed, and the breach was healed again.' The couple returned to Netv Plymouth, and lived at “The Grange,” on.the proceeds of the woman’s orchard, poultry, [o:£| 3fEnroth died in May 31, 1911.

Before he died, Enroth had a visit from A /epresSTFaTTve-'-oir the Public Trustee, and, in reply; to afrom Mrs* Berridge,* this gentlemen said that he had made a will for Enroth. Enroth then told her that it was in her favor. Eater he ordered another will,to he made, but when this was sent, .he was too ill to sign it. The first will which the Public Trustee made was proved, and its terms proved to he that all Enroth’s personal estate went to Mrs Berridge, The real estate was left on trust to the Public Trustee, who was to pay her 30s per week from the interest, or, if this course could not he avoided, out of prinicpal. After her death the property'was left to one H. H. Earle, or on his death to William A. Thorne and Kate Nicholl. After Enroth’s death the Trustee paid to Mrs Berridge 80s per week until November, 1912.

The Public Trustee then wrote to the Hon. O. Samuel, M.L.C., who was acting for Mrs Berridge, stating that he had received an affidavit from a firm of English solicitors which showed that Enroth had wrongfully obtained administration of the estate of Mrs Earle, whom ho had married while he already had a wife. He had subsequently sent to H. H. Earle £3OO.

Till last October, continued Mr Quilliam, no money was paid to Mrs Berringc by tlie Public Trustee, but since then some had been paid. Later the Trustee had found out for himself that Enroth had a wife in Brisbane. Quoting an Australian affidavit before him, which he handed into the Court, Mr Quilliam said that Enroth had first married a Miss Kate Hoopell in England. She had borne him a daughter, Mrs Nicholl . Ho'and Ids wife came to Australia. His wife died, and he carried at Brisbane Miss Sarah E. Lane, who was still alive. He loft her in 1903- and went to England, where he married Mrs' Earle, a widow. When she died he at once obtained possession of her means, came to New Plymouth, and married Mrs Berridge, taking the name of Enroth. The case, said Mr Quilliam, resolved itself into a question of equity. Mr Johnstone agreed to accept the affidavit of Mrs Thorne, of Brisbane, as evidence of tbc fact of Enroth having had a living wife when he married Mrs Berridge, PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE. Clara Berridge, a widow, deposed that in 1898 she purchased the property referred to in the claim, which was mortgaged for £6OO. Her husband was alive hut delicate, and she kept the house by nursing until his death. She first knew the man calling himself Benjamin Enroth in October, 1906. when he came to her niirsing-liPnie. Her husband was then dead. Enroth

said he was a widower, his wife having been dead for nine months (this was the date of Mis Earles death), appeared to be in ill-health, and she nursed him. He stayed three months, and then proposed marriage, which witness declined. Enroth then left, but continued to write to her. In Febru-

ary. 1907, he returned, and she accepted him. Tney were married at the .Registrar's office on March 9th. She then owned the property, subject to a mortgage of £6OO. Shortly after the ! marriage Enroth left on a visit to his j daughter at Sydney, travelling by j easy stages. In his ‘absence she re- ! ceived from him five letters produced. He returned in about six weeks. He proposed that she should give up nursj ing. She had then £3OO in the Post j Office Savings Bank, She got £2OO of j this from Enroth, and the rest she had I saved. On his return he asked for all this money,"and she gave it to him. At the same time she authorised him to sell some of her cattle and other effects. The entry in Enroth’s diary of May 20, 1907, of having received £l7 from the auctioneers, and in his cash account for May, were in Enroth’s handwriting. On the same date there was an entry in connection with some of her fowls which Enroth sold. He also sold her furniture. In September, 1907, Enroth suggested building houses on her town property. Up to that time she was still nursing for a living. Enroth had given her no money except the £2OO which she subsequently gave hack to him. Enroth suggested that she should make the laud over to him, and he was to make a will leaving it to her and her family at death. To this she'agreed, and at the office of the Hon. O. Samuel a transfer to Enroth was signed, the consideration being stated as “natural love and affection.” She then thought Enroth was her husband, and on the day the transfer was signed he signed a will leaving, all his Now Zealand property to witness. He said this was worth £II,OOO, but she had no means of verifying this. Enroth (promised to pay off the mortgage of £6OO on the land,, and a few months later he said ! lie had done so. She was not aware now that it had not been paid. ' She thought the property was mortgaged for £745. She did not know this till iust before Enroth’s death. Enroth built two houses on the land about two years after the transfer to him. She believed they cost £550 each, but she had nothing to do with it. In 'March, 1908, she went ,to Auckland with Enortfi to mget h.is daughter, Mrs Xicoll. He said l\erppother had been a Miss Kate Hpopell; and that, his daughter was 15 - when her mother ; died. Mys .N'ieholl,appeared to witness Ho be over ,30, never spoke of her age. Enroth and his daughter }tadj a. ■dispute in AnokiainJ, and the daughter' told; witness that, Enroth ,hjul awife in Brisbane., Enyoth deniqi this to witness, who .beliqvod him. The dispute between Enrothipud his daughter Mew ovey,, ; Till, tjiqp., there hs<jiijhegn no question as to the validity of her marriage. When the Public Trustee representative visited Enroth during his last' illness'the latter told witness* that it* was on private business. The üblic Trustee’s representative told her .that he had been altering a will. When she spoke to’Enroth about ilj tie. said' it was all rigid, ! . and ‘all iiT* lier fayor.! been altering a'will, tVhen she spoke 'to*Enroth about it he said it was all right, and all in her favor! ' Enroth sent for' the Public trustee again, and , he - made'another will fpmiJLar to that made in her favor by Mr Samuel; L He was too ill to sign the, new will, and said: Mr Samuel’s will stand.” , ;i , ; YESTERDAY’S PEOGEEDTXG S.

When the Court resumed yesterday morning, Mr Quilliam said he proposed to close the case for the plaintiff at the conclusion of her cross-examin-ation by counsel for the Public Trustee, but he would ask leave to call evidence as to the value of the houses later if his Honor considered it an clement in the case.

The examination of ills Berridge aas then proceeded with. To Mr .Johnstone; During the time she was married to Air Enroth they lived very happily together. She had also lived in more comfort than before or since, because she had not so much to do. Mr Enroth might have paid her a little more than £2OO. She did not remember the,exact amount, but it was about £2OO. All the furitnre and trie effects in the house at his death went to her, but these had always been hers. She had Enroth’s personal effects under the will, hut they were very trifling. Enroth built the two houses entirely out of his own money, so far as she knew. His Honor: But what happened to the £3OO lie obtained from yon ?

The plaintiff said this was intended for repairs to “The Grange,” but she dd not know how much of this money was spent for the purpose. Mr Johnstone said that the Public Trustee was quite sensible to the unfortunate position Airs Berridge had i been placed in. He had been intense- 1 iy sympathetic, and bis object in coming to the Court was to have the mat- l ter settled and have a judgment of the ! Court upon which he could rely in the i

event‘"of any claims that might cfftfce from elsewhere. Mr Johnstone intimated to the Court that “The Grange” was now let at £1 per week, and the two cottages at TBs and 17s fid respectively. Further cross-examined by Air Johnstone, the plaintiff said she did not know whether Mr Enroth was in receipt of remittances from time to time from Australia. Tradesmen’s accounts were paid monthly.

ft transpired at a later stage in the proceedings that a claim had been made against the estate by a gentleman named H. H. Earle, of Devon, England, on the ground that Enroth had obtained letters of administration

in his deceased mother’s estate by fraud, he having a wife living in Brisbane at trie time be married Mrs Earle at St. David’s Church, Exeter. Mrs Earle died intestate in 1906, and Enroth, who was then living under his true name of Ebenezer Thorne, obtained letters of administration of her estate. It was discovered that Enroth had a wife living in Brisbane, but he had in the meantime realised £3554 worth of the assets. As the result of subsequent proceedings instituted by Earle, letters of administration of his deceased mother’s estate were granted to him, and the grant to Enroth revoked.

His Honor: Why didn’t he follow that up? Mr Johnstone: All trace of Enroth was lost. Ho apparently went across to America, and later came to Auckland, and finally drifting down here, and it was not until his death that they found out anything about him, and Earle is now claiming for this £3500, together with costs of proceedings he had had to take in order to got administration of Mrs Earle’s estate. Continuing, Mr Johnstone said that ii his Honor was satisfied with the affidavit which hud been put in by counsel for plaintiff as to the identity of Enroth, then he was unable to contend that the Court had not the power to set aside the transfer, hut he would suggest that it bo on terms requiring plaintiff to account for the permanent improvements.

Mr Quilliam contended t,hat his Honor was quite justified in making an order ofr the transfer of the property as it was, but at the same time plaintiff would be saddled with an undesirable class of property, which she was not in a position to keep up. , ’...> Numerous authorities were quoted on both sides, and his Honor reserved his decision.