Enticement Claim Held Not Proved

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31768, 27 August 1968, Page 28

Enticement Claim Held Not Proved

(New Zealand Press Association)

WANGANUI, August 26.

A Wanganui man’s claim for damages for the enticing away of his wife by a former Wanganui butcher—thought to be the first case of its kind in New Zealand—has failed.

Arthur James Spencer, a carpenter, claimed $5OOO general and $281.52 special damages from Stewart Campbell Relph, now of Auckland, before the Chief Justice (Sir Richard Wild) at the last session of the

Supreme Court.

Mr Spencer claimed that Mr Relph enticed his wife to leave him and harboured her against her will. Mr Relph denied enticement and harbouring, saying it was of her own free will that the wife left her home and chose to live with him.

Alternatively he pleaded that, if the enticement and harbouring were proved, his actions were justified on the ground that Mr Spencer had ill-treated his wife or that he (Mr Relph) had reasonable cause to believe Mr Spencer had done this. In his reserved judgment, released today, his Honour said such actions were very rare. No case reported in New Zealand was cited to him by counsel and .he was aware of none.

Reviewing the evidence, he said Mr Spencer married his wife in 1933 and 12 children were bom to them. The marriage was a reasonably happy one for much of the next 25 years, but about 1960, with the six eldest children virtually independent, the wife began to look for some enjoyment for herself.

Mr Spencer and Mr Relph and their wives met in 1963. after Mr Relph’s domestic happiness had been worsening for some years. He developed a friendship with Mrs Spencer through delivering goods to her home and later through a mutual interest in bowls. Their association became closer and by the summer of 1964 they were meeting almost every night at the swimming or bowling club and discussing their mutual problems. Mr Relph separated from his wife about June, 1965, and went to Hamilton the next August, after telling Mrs Spencer that she could get in touch with him if she needed help. Some six weeks later, telling him she had “had enough” Mrs Spencer joined Mr Relph in Hamilton, where they lived as man and wife. She eventually returned home for the sake of her children but between then and March last year she left to stay with Mr Relph another three times—one of them in

Brisbane—and they were now living together in Auckland.

There was conflict between Mr Spencer and his wife about the state of their marriage in its last few years, his Honour said. Mrs Spencer denied that her association with Mr Relph had broken up her marriage.

“My conclusion, on all the evidence, is that, because Mr Spencer was insensitive to the wife’s feelings and the two were not real partners, the marriage had some years before 1965 sunk to a level of unhappiness in the mind of the wife which would have prompted her to leave her home had it not been for the children.

“In particular I do not find it established that Mr Relph enticed or persuaded the wife away.

“1 would add that on all the evidence it would seem probable that Mr Spencer could successfully have petitioned for divorce on the ground of his wife’s adultery but he chose to bring this action to achieve reunion with his wife.

“Mr Spencer, in my judgment, has failed to prove .enticement.”

The claim for damages for harbouring also failed, his

Honour said. He held that on each occasion the wife had reasonable cause for leaving the plaintiff. Judgment was entered for Mr Kelph, with costs. Mr J. W. Tizard appeared for Mr Spencer and Mr R. T. Hemara, of Hamilton, for Mr Relph.