WIFE'S CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 59, 11 March 1930, Page 8

WIFE'S CLAIM.

STEAD V. STEAD. COURT ORDER CONTESTED. PROM WEALTH TO POVERTY. SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS. An unusual case in -which a husband, formerly wealthy, had obtained an order for maintenance against his wife under the Destitute Persons' Act -was opened before Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court yesterday and continued to-day. The proceedings arose through an objection by the wife, Mrs. Gerald L. Stead ("Mr. A. H. Johnstone), and an application to have the order cancelled by the Supreme Court. On behalf of the respondent, Gerald L. Stead, Mr. Mowbray opposed the application. On February 19, Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., had dismissed an application for the variation or cancellation of an order previously made in the Magistrate's Court under the Destitute Persons' Act, said Mr. Johnstone. The marriage had taken place in 1909 and £10,000 was paid to trustees under the marriage settlement. Mrs. Stead was to receive £300 a year from the income, and the husband was to receive the balance of about £200. In April, 1926, the parties separated and, under a deed of separation, it was provided that the husband's portion of the income should be paid to the wife for the education of the three children of the marriage. Stead lived at Takapuna and the wife at Melbourne, continued Mr. Johnstone. On October 4 last Stead was- awarded £5 a week against his wife, and proceedings were started subsequently to test the validity of the order on the grounds of fresh evidence. The magistrate refused to vary or cancel the order. Councel said it was proved in the Magistrate's Court that the husband was s living in adultery at Takapuna, and submitted that no wife should be asked to maintain a husband under those circumstances. Lived in a Tent. Evidence was given by Walter Victor ® Pyne, labourer, of Milford, that Stead and a woman, who was generally known as Mrs. Stead, conducted the Tuku tearooms. Personally, he did not know what the relations were between them. Six months ago Stead and a woman occupied a tent together, said Charles O'Loughlan, another witness, living at Milford, and who did not think there had been any change . since. Most Milford people called them Mr. and Mrs. Stead. . To Mr. Johnstone, witness said he had known the woman before, and was not misled. The Husband's Case. The property which had been the subject of the settlement was originally that of Stead, said Mr. Mowbray. When Stead became destitute, he found it difficult to earn a living, because he had no trade or profession. Counsel admitted that Stead had for, three years lived on the same premises with a woman. She had looked after him during a serious illness, and they were now in business together. The allegation that he was living in adultery with her was absolutely denied. Gerald L. Stead detailed the circumstances of the separation, and said he ■went to live at Takapuna three years ago. He made numerous attempts to get work, and was then laid up with a serious illness. The woman with him in the shop had nursed him and had given up her position to do so. To Mr. Johnstone he admitted that he had shared the same tent with a woman at Takapuna, and said he intended to marry her when he had enough money to go on with the proceedings. The earnings either of them made went into a common fund. Unhappy Grievances. Mr. Mowbray asked permission of the Court this morning, and was allowed, to further examine the respondent, in consequence of the evidence called by Mr. Johnstone to" show that Stead was living with a woman at Takapuna. Witness was first asked what unhappy grievances he had against his wife prior to the separation. Mr. Johnstone: That question is a mile from the subject we are dealing with. His Honor ruled that the question should stand, and witness said that he had been away from home a great deal attending race meetings in connection with his livelihood. Frequently when he arrived home he found his wife "insen- . sibly drunk." The first occasion was in 1914. He had engaged the services of medical men to break her of the "habit." Mr.- Johnstone objected to the evidence on the ground that the wife was absent and it" was impossible to challenge the 'statements. Stead could not put himself forward as " a person without blame and the circumstances of his life •were such that his wife was excused from • keeping him. . His Honor: If she is the same class of woman as she says he is of man, is there any reason why she should refuse to maintain him because he is living with another woman? Mr. Johnstone: That would make no difference. No wife should be forced to maintain an able-bodied man carrying on business) and keeping an establishment in which another woman is involved. Witness, continuing his evidence, said the drinking on the part of his wife continued until the separation, although she had given frequent promises that it would never occur again. Differences also existed between them on financial grounds. At the time of the separation there were outstanding, accounts, some of which were for over £100 and witness said he had to sell his Cambridge pro- . perty'to meet his liabilities. "Drowning My Sorrows." "I was drowning my sorrows," said witness, when asked what state he was in at the time of meeting the woman with whom he was living at Takapuna. He confided his sorrows to her, and her influence had led him to give up drink. He had asked her if he could stay at her furnished bach, and the owner of the property had given him permission to erect a tent to sleep in. O'Loughlan, ■who had given evidence, had become so abusive to him one day that witness said he had to hit him on the head with a bucket. He was also not on good terms with the other witness called by Mr. Johnstone. His Honor asked why the magistrate had -made an order against the wife for the payment of £5 a week. Did ifc re-

quire £5 to support a destitute person? It appeared that the magistrate had determined to do equity, but he should have considered only what amount was necessary to relieve the man's wants. Reasons why he had attended race meetings were given by the witness. He said the breeding and training of racehorses had been his livelihood. Mr. Johnstone: You sleep in the same compartment with the lady whose name has been mentioned? —Yes, but in a separate bed. Do you undress there?— Yes. She undresses in the bathroom. She arrives there undressed? Witness said, under further crossexamination, that he had been living with the woman 2£ years. Mr. Johnstone: You lived in lavish style most of your married life? —No; I lived comfortably. More than comfortably?— No. Did you not entertain lavishly in the Hotel Australia? —Xo, not lavishly. As a sportsman would? —I have seen them 100 per cent worse. Witness denied that during the latter part of his life with his wife he was almost constantly drunk. He had to attend to his business. Mr. Johnstone: What was your business? —Farming and racehorses. You have won with racehorses in most of the big events in New Zealand? —Yes. Big Wins. You won large sums?— Yes, £43,000 in eight years. Whero did you live then? —In-Canter-bury and at Cambridge. You have tried to get back the money you agreed should be used for the education of your children ? —I think lam entitled to it. To His Honor: He had not introduced the woman as Mrs. Stead to anybody at Takapuna. He admitted to Mr. Johnstone his heavy drinking had been partly the cause of his destitution. Mr. Johnstone: You have always had three meals a day?— Not always. How long is it since you had a party at the tea rooms?—A birthday party on January 21. Your health was enthusiastically toasted? —Yes. You were still in a state of destitution? You are quite well dressed? — Yes. And your motor car stands at the Court door? —Yes. You buy benzine for it?— Very little. Witness added that he used the car in connection with the business. It had paid for itself. Mr. Johnstone: What was your trade turnover?—£soo to the end of February. You commenced last October? —Yes, You are;now trying to sell?— Yes. You have cast vile aspersions on your wife? —You drove me to it. This was the fifth occasion witness said he had been forced to appear in court. Mr. Johnstone said he had no opportunity of offering rebutting evidence to the allegations against the wife, because she was absent. Witness had made an admission that he intended to bring proceedings for a divorce. "Will you marry the girl?" asked Mr. Johnstone. Witness: Yes. I could no longer be blackmailed then. In reply to further questions he said' there had been a close approach to blackmail 'in some statements that had been made. Mr. Johnstone informed his Honor that no payments had been made under the order of the magistrate. Judgment was reserved.