MAN WHO DID NOT DIE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 438, 21 August 1928, Page 13

MAN WHO DID NOT DIE

WANTS FARM HE GAVE HIS WIFE LIVELY SCENE IN SUPREME COURT TOLD by his doctors in 1915 that he had only six months to live, Charles Islington Subritzky, a farmer-seaman, transferred his farm at Awanui to his wife at her importunities. Instead of dying, however, he lived to tell the story in the Supreme Court this morning, when he asked Mr. Justice Reed, through Mr. Hall Skelton, to give him back the property. His spouse, Jessie Subritzky, resisted the claim with the help of Mr, A. M. Goulding.

In evidence Subritzky said lie had inherited some 65 acres in the best part of Awanui. lie married in 1900 and his wife lived on the property while he went to sea in the schooner Greyhound. This vessel was sold, and he as part owner received £1,275. Seriously ill at the time he sent his wife to town to collect the money. She placed it in her own account, he said. Fie became gravely ill and told his wife he was shortly to die. She then, he asserted, induced him to make over the property to her. As he had only been schooled to Standard 11., he left all business affairs to his wife. Gradually recovering, witness went to sea again on the Greyhound as an employee of the Northern Steamship Company. Practically all his earnings he sent to his wife. All farm improvements had been carried out with his money. ORDERED OUT Up to the end of last year relations between them were cordial, lie said. Later she came to live in Auckland and kept a boarding-house. Witness was ordered out one day. Returning, he was confronted by a boarder, who told him that he would have to sign an apology. Witness signed an apology made out

for him in which he learned he had stated he had been drinking excessively, that he had been cruel and that he had defamed her. and that he had made over his property to do what she liked with. Witness said he had no idea these words were in the statement. Pie was warned by his wife to keep away from the house. MEMORY NOT TOO GOOD Cross-examined by Mr. Goulding witness admitted hi-s memory was not too good. Counsel produced a judgment by Mr. W. R. McXean, S.M., given recently, showing that Mrs. Subritzky was granted a separation order in consequence of certain cruelties. Three brothers of the plaintiff gave evidence in support. His Plonour then remarked to Mr. Hall Skelton that he had not made OLit the slightest case against the wife. The presumption in law was that plaintiff had made a gift to his wife. EXPLOSIVE WITNESS The proceedings were coloured with amusing touches during the examination of two of the Messrs. Subritzky, but it was not until Mr. Hall Skelton began to question Mrs. Subritzky that the fun started. Counsel’s first question was like putting a flame to a powder magazine. The witness poured forth a torrent of explanations, expostulations and ejaculations presumably in refutation of her husband’s evidence. The Judge had continually to remonstrate, and when she said to Mr. Skelton: “What stupid questions you ask,” his Honour rebuked her for impertinance. Two of the brothers Subritzky were heard in loud denials of the woman’s assertions and had to be ushered from the Court. (Proceeding.)