HUSBAND AND WIFE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 222, 12 June 1908, Page 9

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

■ —■ —t LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE. AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning in the case, Elizabeth Roe y: .Thos; Rao, the complaint .of is' a. destitute porson mthin tho liieaning'of .tho, Destitute Persons Act, 189-1, and that slio' has a near relative, viz.,'her biisba'nd.-jwho was of sufficient .-ability'to maintain her, but who had wholly failed to provide maintenance for her. ' Complainant kept a boarding-, house, and her. husband for certain reasons desired" her to, give it. iip. On her refusal to! do 'so, lie withdraw, and'.lived..'apart from her. While in the house ho contributed £8 a month to ,its upkeep, but; since he left, refused-to contribute anything. Both-'par-ties stood firm in tho matter. His Worship remarked that under ordinary oircumstances a husband was liable to maintain his wife, if she was 'destitute, apd be was, able to do so 1 . His neglect to maintain .her-.must be, definite and wilful, and,it.was the duty of the- Court to exercise its .discretion in considering, any reasonable allegation that might be set up for the defence.. A bona fide offer, made! by the- husband to provide a suitable housei for his wife appeared ,to the' Court to bo an answer to a charge of neglecting to maintain her. The Court had to be guided by'., all the surrounding circumstances in ' determining the .case. .. Defendant. had ai'permanent; "position and ; a sufficient iiicom'q to. maintain, Jris>.wif« without.3ho^oxt , rhn'eous. and somewhat" doubtful aid of a cheap beardinghouse. Thero 'was no - reason .to doubt' hi 3 good! faith: in making an. offer to, a private house for his wife,as h'e had done,' when the fact,that ho bad paid.regularly'in the past until, he, became with, affairs was considered. Whether his cause for dissatisfaction was well, founded, or not he was quite within his rights',-, in the opinion of the Court, in desiring to live privately, so long as be had the,means to do so. Hi 3 Worship was not at all satisfied that complainant was a destituto person,' even on her own evidence, but destitute or not the Court considered it : was. her'duty to live as her husband desired her to do/ in private., If, on the. other-hand, she continued in her determination to ke?p the .boardinghouse she could' have no claim on her husband ' for maintenance. '< 'If' complainant persisted'! in keeping her daughter to assist in tho work of the' boardinghouse, contrary to'her husband's wish; 1 sho must'be prepared to support the daughter, and not look to her husband : for ■ maintenance, Both complaints''must-bo dis- • ' J ' ; '-'! . Mr. -Wilford ; 'api»eS'Wid ''for'coinplaiiwiit; and!! Mr. Blair! for 'defendant.! '• ''-'.fi "- : i '■