THE RYAN CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1340, 14 May 1885, Page 3

THE RYAN CASE.

In the Supreme Court in Melbourne, on April 29th, the case of Jonas v. Ford came on for hearing The plaintiff as assignee of the insolvent estate of one Patrick Ryan, of New Zealand sought to recover from the defendant, Mary Ford, a sum of £6OO as part of the insolvent estate. The case for the plaintiff was that about two years ago Ryan had absconded from New Zealand. The defendant bad lived with him as his wife for about fifteen years, and had several children by him. She and Ryan came to this country, but they were arrested here at the instance of the creditors. The defendant had brought here with her various sums of money which were deposited by her in diiferent banks, amongst others the sum of £6OO, which was the subject of this action. This sum she had deposited into the London Chartered Rank, in the name of Mary Ford. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was the wife of Ryan, that the property was his, and that she therefore had no claim to it, and that it ought to be givenjfor distribution among his creditors. The defendant maintained that the property was hers. The evidence of several witnesses, taken in New Zealand as to the proceedings in insolvency there, and as to the relations between the defendant and Ryan, were read, and then the Court adjourned till next day. The defendant stated that she was born in Ireland ; that when she was a girl she went to America in company with her aunt whose name was Leonard. In America she was married to a man named Ford, a fanner. Ford rented a farm of about 3000 acres, for which bo paid £IOO a-year. The furra was about two miles from New York.. Sometime after her (marriage, her husband being killed by a fall from bis horse, she realised his property —about £7O0 — and took it back with her to Ireland, She remained in that country a few months, and then came to Victoria. About sixteen years ago she was at Ballarat, where she met Ryan, who was a cattle dealer. She lived with him as his wife, but was not married to him. She had between £6OO and £7OO which she sometimes lodged on deposit and sometimes lent. Ryan knew nothing about this money. They afterwards went to Brisbane, to Adelaide, again to Ireland, and ultimately toTimaru, in New Zealand. She always took the money, and Ryan knew nothing about it. She brought this and about £I4OO of other money from Timaru to Melbourne about two years ago. The £I4OO she had lodged in the Savings Bank, and Jthe £6OO now sued for she lodged with the London Chartered Bank. Mr Smyth, in reply to this, submitted that the defendant’s story was incredible and that the property really belonged to Ryan, and the trustees of his estate were therefore entitled to it. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.