MAN AND WIFE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 284, 26 August 1922, Page 9

MAN AND WIFE

CANNOT SUE EACH OTHEF EXCEPT IN DIVORCE COURT That a man and wife cannot go to litigation against each other, except in the Divorce Court, was a pronouncement made by Mr. Justice Salmond at the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour stated that there was a distinct ruling In the English courts to this effect. A fresh chapiter in the claim of actions which have followed the irrevocable breach between Abraham Salaman. a Hindoo, and his European wife, was opened at the Supreme Court yesterday, when the divorced wife, Marjorie Salaman, brought an action to recover £lOOO damages from h.er ex-husband for alleged unreasonable and malicious persecution. ■The case was heard before Mr. Justice Salmond and a jury of twelve, of which Mr. A. B. Johnston was foreman, The parties were Marjorie Salaman, of 251 Rintoul Street, Wellington, the divorced wife, and Abraham Walley Mahomed Salaman. a Hindoo herbalist, of Auckland. Mr. E. G. Jellicoo appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant.

History of the Case. The parties were married in Wellington, but after the birth of Ayesha, agreed to separate. Salaman going to Auckland, and agreeing to provide for the maintenance of Mrs. Salaman and ihe child, who remained in Wellington. Divorce proceedings were instituted in August, 1919, by Salaman on the ground of the misconduct of Mrs. Salaman in Wellington. The action was brought in October. 1921, and a decree nisi was granted in the Auckland court, the child, no order regarding whom was made, remaining in the mother’s core. Salaman, after several attempts to secure the child’, instituted Habeas Corpus proceedings, with which Mrs. Salaman did not comply.

Plaintiff’s Story. Plaintiff alleged that defendant maliciously and without reasonable or nrohablo cause, caused and procured an order for a writ of attachment against her, caused her to be arrested at Auckland, and taken, first to the police station at Auckland and afterwards to Wellington, where she was detained in custody at the Point Halswell Prison until May 15, 1922. When plaintiff was brought to the Supreme Court at Wellington ehe was, by order of His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) on .May 15, 1922, released and dismissed from custody, no charge being made against her. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed £lOOO damages. Defendant admitted the procuring of the orders for the writs, but contended that he had taken the step only on his legal rights, and that the step was made necessary solely by plaintiff’s refusal and neglect to perform the orders of the Court in regard to the custody of the child.

East and West. Mr. Jellicoe, in opening, alluded to the unfortunate results of the marriage of mixed races, and set forth what were claimed to be the malicious and unreasonable acts of ths defendant.

A Non-Suit Point. Before plaintiff was called to give evidence. Mr. Myers asked leave to amend the plea of defence by the addition of a clause relying on the fact that, as on all material dates in the statement of claim, the parties, as the decree absolute was not then pronounced, were husband and wife, and the action was not tenable. His Honour said he was surprised that this defence was not advanced in the first place; it seemed to him the obvious defence. Mr. Jellicoe was allowed in the meantime to call evidence. Marjorie Salaman, the plaintiff, stated that if she got the custody of the child she did not want a penny damages. The child was all she had to live for. After hearing plaintiff’s evidence, His Honour, shortly before 6 p.m.,

gave a non-suit, without costs, on the point raised by Mr. Myers, remarking that there was a distinct ruling in the English courts that man and wife could not go to litigation except in the divorce courts.