A HUSBAND’S CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 122, 17 February 1926, Page 14

A HUSBAND’S CLAIM

ON WIFE’S PROPERTY AFTER GIVING HER HIS WAGES A wife receives her husband’s wages, and, by taking in boarders, is able to earn and save sufficient money to pur- | chase real estate, the title to which she takes in her own name. Matrimonial differences arise, and the parties agree to separate.- Whose is the property which the thrifty wife has been able to purchase? Does it remain with the wife absolutely; does it belong to the husband absolutely; or do the parties benefit jointly ? ' These were the questions, set for the determination of Air, Justice Alpers in the Supreme Court yesterday, when John Reginald Santos (Air. G. G. G. Watson), of Kaiwarra, Wellington, labourer, proceeded against Elsie Alay Santos (bis wife), sued, in respect of her separate estate and for a declaration from the Court that certain properties purchased by her and in her own name, were held by her as trustee for plaintiff and defendant. Alternatively, be asked that the Court order defendant to convey the properties to him and his wife as tenants in common in equal shares as partners Plaintiff stated in evidence that he and defendant were married in Sydney 19 years ago, when seventeen and sixteen years of age respectively. Years after the marriage differences arose between them, and in 1924 a separation was effected.

In his statement of claim plaintiff alleged that it w r as .agreed between them after the marriage that he should regularly pay to his wife, the whole of the wages earned by him, and that she should treat his wages, together with all moneys earned by her from taking

in boarders or from other sources, as a common fund out of which in the first place to pay their living expenses . All moneys over and above that were to-be saved and invested bv the wife

(or the joint use and benefit of them Iwth. . Since the date of the marriage he had duly paid to his wife his wages, amounting' lo £lO per fortnight, the greater portion of which she ,had invested in the purchase of real estate title to which was taken by her in her name only. Plaintiff therefore claimed that he was entitled to the beneficial ownership of an estate in tenancy in common.

By her statement of defence, defendant’admitted earning money by taking in boarders., but denied that the house belonged to both of them, but to herself alone. She denied that any agreement was made between them as to investing for their joint benefit the wages handed to her by her husband. She asserted that no part of his wages were saved or invested by her in am manner whatever, and stated that thproperties were purchased with blown money. She denied that she pm chased the properties, for the joint benefit of herself and plaintiff, or that thev were partners. Mr. A. B. Sievwright, who appeared for defendant, applied for a nonsuit ou the grounds that plaintiff had no case in law.

His Honour intimated that he. would reserve his decision on the question. Mr. Sievwright called evidence to prove that the monev used in the l>nrchase of the properties belonged solely to defendant, and stated that she never had the slightest intention of sharing the properties with her husband. When they separated she voluntarily offered hini one of the propetries if he would take over the liabilities on it, but he refused. She never refused to give him monev whenever he asked her for it. The case will be continued to-day.