WHOSE MONEY?

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 70, 24 April 1929, Page 9

WHOSE MONEY?

Per Press Association.

TRICKS OF A B00KMAKER. AV1FE APPEAltS IN COURT.

WELLINGTON, Tliis day. An extraordinary case is heing lieard hefore Judge McGregor to-day, in which Richaixl Coxon is suing his wifo for the issuing of an order declaring the sum of £1009 to be his property. , . Alr Lcioester, for the franklv stated that Coxon had been earrving on business as a bookniaker, and to miniini.se the apparent size of liis ojierations, paid the money into his wife's acoount in the Pe.st Offiee Savings Bank. and later deposited £1000 in the Union Bank in defendant's name. A total of £170 bclonged to tlie defcndant, but tlie plaintHT clearcd himself of the indebtcdness. A disagreement arose between the partics and tlie plaiutiff took steps to sce if the defendant was propared to give an ackiiowledgment that the money bclonged to plaiutiff. The result was that tlie money was re-dc-posited for a furtlier torm of two years, for the reasou thafc plamtiir considered it desirahle to delav liis action against liis wilc, in case it disclosed liis hookmaking ojierations. At that timo Coxon had not heen' convicted, hut hc had since been prosecuted twice and fined in Decomber. A elaim was made on tho bank for the £1000 and proceedings wero instituted. . Tlie defence denics tho allegations as to purpose of account and conteiuls that the money was part of defendant's separate eslate, and also claimed that it was obtained partly by keeping bourders cind partly as gifts from tlie plaiutiff in reeognition of defendant' s services in tlie conduct of the business. It was furtlier submitted that oven if the money ^ras given on trust the trust was for an improper and unlawful purpose, and could not be enforced. • The qnestion was raised as to whotlier the plaintiff could proceed against his wife except by wav of summary pna-odure. under the Married AYoman's Property Act, and the ohjection was noted. Plaintiff also gave evidence. Mr Mazengarb, for the wife, asked for a non-suit on the grounds that the, plaintiff could not sct up fraudulcnt intent, and had not rcbutted the prosumption that the monoy was a gift to tlie wife. Tlie case is procccdinc:.