HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2267, 15 October 1891, Page 4

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

A very unusual case came before Mr Justice Williams and a jury of four at Invercargill on Saturday, when Timothy Gorman claimed £3OO, damagesfor breach of contract, and £56 money lent, from his wife, Mary Gorman. Before the parties were married Mrs Gorman (then Mrs Cameron, a widow) carried on business at Dipton as a hotelkeeper. After the Hotel was burnt down it is alleged Gorman lent her £56, and after their marriage a verbal agreement was entered into that in consideration of the plaintiff disposing of the stock and produce on his farm and putting the proceeds into the hotel, he should have a share in the business for the joint use of the plaintiff and his family during the married life of the parties. After marriage it appeared from the evidence of plaintiff that the two families did not get oth veijy well together, and the disagreement subsequently extended to Gorman and his wife; but an agreement was arrived at under which they were to assist each other in family and household concerns, never to bring up past grievances, and at all times to disdain persons who brought such things up, and were to keep the two lamilies apart and support them out of the earnings of the hotel. When the hotel was burnt down, ju May last Mrs Gorman went her own way, and she had the liceuse transferred from Gorman to her tenant. Mrs Gorman’s evidence was. to the effect that she had lent Gorman money before they were married amounting to between £3OO and £4OO, but had taken no receipts, and the payments made by Gorman were in liquidation of these advances. She denied having brrowed money from him, and alleged that the memoranda she had kept had been taken by Gorman from a secret drawer in her daughter’s writing desk. Sir Robert Stout (for the plantiff) and Mr McAlister (for defendant) having addressed the court, Mr Justice Williams said the question depended upon the credibility of the witnesses, and he was very glad the jury and not himself were called upon to decide. The jury returned a verdict for the husband for £325 and costs as per scale.