HUSBAND'S HOUSE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 121, 24 May 1944, Page 2

HUSBAND'S HOUSE

OCCUPANCY BY WIFE

A PREMATURE APPLICATION

"It is no doubt a serious step to refuse a husband possession of a house which is his property and to confirm the wife in her occupation of it although it is not in any way Vipr DroDerty, tout \V6 liq-vg coitig conclusion that in a proper case where justice between the P ar r u £® requires this to be dohe it ™ay , done under the power conferred by section 23 of f the Married Women s I Thfs t 'dictum was contained in a judgment delivered in th e Supreme Court to-day in a rase heard last month by Mr. Justice Fair and Mr. Justice Callan. Tamoc The case was a motion by James Thomson, carpenter (Mr. Vialoux), to review an order made by a judge dismissing his application for Possession of the house from his wife Maria Thomson (Mr. Wells). me parties had lived apart for 20 yeais, the wife living in the house as part maintenance. Plaintiff, now aged 66, said he wanted to provide for living on social security and wished to make arrangements by obtaining possession of the house before ne retired from work. The wife was 54 years of age. ~ In the judgment their Honors said it appeared that the husband desired to cease work but could not afford to do so unless he got the house to live in or the proceeds of its sateIn either event the wife would suffer. The wife was not yet of an age to receive the social security benefit, and notwithstanding his age, if he wss able to continue work, and if his, continuance of work was necessary to enable him to maintain his wife, then it was his duty to continue work. „ , _ , The husband, the Court felt, had brought the matter up prematurely, and dismissed the motion. ,