MAZO V. MAZO 13/1948

ne . ay

MMAZ O,

MA2 Oo

ORDER

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS.

FE

: u Pro nee in A PE

DIXON J.

I agrees

(>

ns a HAZO_v. _MAZO - REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (OHAL). LATHAM C.J.

This ts an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, His Honour Mr. Justice Wolff, in a case 4n which the plaintiff Morris Mazo claimed as against his wife Zlata Mazo that he was entitled to two pieces of land of which she was the registered proprietor. The plaintiff husband claimea a declaration that the house and land, No. 96 Monash Avenue, Hollywood, and certain other land, No. 35 Fairway, —

Nedlands, were the property of the plaintiff. The claim suc—

ceeded and the learned judse gave judament for the plaintiff. There are two srounds of appeal. The first is that

the finding of the learned jJudze that it was intended by the

parties when the properties were purchased and placed in the

that they should nevertheless belong to the vlaintifr name of the defendent/was against evidence and the weight of

evidence. The proverty at Hollywood was bought 4n February 1939 and the property at Nedlands was bought in August 1940. The evidence of the plaintiff is not absolutely clear on all points of detail, but the substance of it was accepted by the learned juazs, supported as it was by other evidence of lir. Routemen ana Mr, Southwood, which His Honour accepted as true. The substance of that evidence was that in 1928 the platntir? husband purchased a property in Perth known as the Bon Marche' for £42,000. A considerable amount of the purchase money was left outstanding upon mortzage. At the time when the prop- erties at Hollywood and Nedlands were purchased there were arrears of interest outstanding upon that mortgage. The plaintiff, 1t was found, and there was evidence to support that finding, provided the money for the purchase of the two properties in question and procured them to be put in his