DESTITUTE HUSBAND

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 141, 11 March 1930, Page 12

DESTITUTE HUSBAND

GERALD L. STEAD SECURES MAINTENANCE WE RESISTS ORDER STARTLING AUCKLAND ACTION Rarely in New Zealand does a husband seek an order for maintenance against his wife. This has happened at Auckland, however, where recently Gerald L. Stead, a member of a wellknown New Zealand family, obtained such an order against his wife, from’whom he is separated. The wife now contests the legality of the order, and the case was partly heard in the Supreme C?urt at Auckland yesterday. 1 Dominion Special Service. Auckland, March 10. The story of a man brought up in circumstances of great affluence who recently obtained, under the Destitute Persons Act, an order for maintenance against his wife, was partially unfolded before Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court to-day. The case arose through the wife, Mrs. Gerald L. Stead (Mr. A. H. Johnstone), objecting to the order and seeking intervention of the Supreme Court to cancel it. Mr. Mowbray appeared for the respondent, Gerald L. Stead, to oppose the cancellation. Appellant’s Case. Mr. Johnstone said the case was an appeal from an order made by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., on February 19 last, when he dismissed an application for variation or cancellation of an order previously made by him under the Destitute Persons Act. The facts were that,respondent Stead was married in 1909, and by the marriage settlement £lO,OOO was paid to trustees, who were to pay from the income £3OO a year to Mrs. Stead and the balance, approximately £2OO, to the husband. The parties separated, and in April, 1926, a deed of separation was entered into. The wife lived in Melbourne with the three children bf the marriage. Under the deed of separation the balance of the income which formerly went to the husband was paid to the wife for the education of the children under certain conditions. Husband Awarded £5 a Week. Stead, who lived at Takapuna, counsel continued, said he was a destitute person, and on October 4 last he went to the Magistrate’s Court asking for an order against his wife. His wife knew nothing of the proceedings. Certain evidence was taken and the Magistrate found that Stead was destitute and awarded him £5 a week against his wife. When she discovered this she decided to test (he validity of the order and commenced proceedings in the Magistrate's Court for variation or cancellation ' of the order. On the ground of fresh evidence there was a right to appeal, but the wife was too late. At the hearing of the application for the variation or cancellation of the order heard here in February, it was proved, said counsel, that Stead was living in Takapuna in adultery. The Magistrate, in a considered judgment, refused to vary or cancel the order. Counsel was now asking His Honour to vary or cancel the order. This was a general appeal by ‘ way of hearing. He submitted that at .common law there was no obligation upon the husband ' to support the wife at all, but that, such obligations as existed had been constituted by statute. He submitted that no wife in these days would be asked to maintain a husband who was living in adultery. A Fishing Venture. Walter Victor Pyne, a labourer, living at Milford, said.be had worked on a “fifty-fifty basis” with Stead in a fishing venture, witness supplying the labour and Stead the boat and the benzine. Stead was living at Takapuna in a converted garage. He slept in a tent there and witness thought someone else occupied it. He knew the woman there who was generally known as Mrs. Stead. Stead and this woman conducted an establishment known as the Tuku Tearooms. -He did not know personally what the position was between them, . • . . Answering Mr. Mowbray, witness submitted he did not know anything about it except what he had heard. , Charles O'jjoughlan, who resided at Milford, said he had lived abOpt eight feet from' Stead. Stead had his meals in the garage and slept in the tent at the back. .That was six months ago. Mr. Stead and a woman occupied the tent six months ago, and he did not think there had been any change. Most people at Milford called them Mr. and Mrs. Stem!. Mr. Mowbray: Did you call them Me and Mrs. Stead? Witness: No. Mr. Johnstone: You had known the lady before?—“Yes, for years. I was not misled.”. Money Originally Husband’s. Mr.’ Mowbray said Mr. Johnstone had not emphasised the fact that the money was originally the property of Stead. At the time of his' marriage Stead set aside this sum of money and made a settlement on his wife. As time went on his circumstances altered and he became destitute. He had endeavoured to earn an honest living but he was not brought up to any trade or profession, ft was admitted that he had lived on the same premises with a woman for the past three years. She was one who had looked after him during a serious illness and was now in business with him. The allegation that he had been" living in adultery with her was absolutely denied. Husband’s Evidence. Gerald L. Stead described the circum- < stances leading to liis separation in 1926, and said his wife had accused him of being drunk at one of the girls’ colleges at Hastings. He did not live with his wife after that. She told him she did not want to see him again, and he next heard from her through her lawyers and her brother. They submitted a draft deed of separation. His wife told him that if he signed the deed sell would let him have the interest on the sum of £2600 invested for him. He had asked her for this money, but had never got anything. He went to live at Takapuna about three years ago and tried to make a living at fishing and commission work. He answered every likely advertisement for six months, but no one would employ him as he was too inexperienced. He became very ill and the woman who was now with him nursed him. She. gave up her position to nurse him. Witness said that after his illness he had been obliged to call a meeting of his creditors. His only asset was a section which his brother took over at a price which enabled him to pay 10/- in the pound. A man in Melbourne had been constantly writing to his wife to go there, and at the first opportunity she went. He had at one time been addicted to drink, but he had become a teetotaller and. it would be two years the next day since he had had a drink. r Counsel produced a letter from one of the trustees expressing the opinion that under the marriage settlement Stead was entitled to all the income above £3OO. Witness said he had approached his brother, who had advanced him £l5O to start business at' Milford. Answering Mr. Johnstone witness said he had never been drunk in his life. It was neuritis ho had suffered from at Takapuna. He had been selling racehorses and went to race meetings at Ellocslie, but not to numyt Ha wnf;

to live with a woman at Takapuna, but did not pay her board as be hud nothing to pay. She called him Gerald, and not “Daddy” as far as be knew. He admitted that he shared the same tent with her. When he had sufficient money to go on with the proceedings it was his intention to marry her. What earnings either of them macle went into a common fund. Answering Mr. Mowbray, witness said his main object in going to races was to put' through sales of horses. That was one thing that he knew quite a lot about. He owed £230 to two banks. Mr. Johnstone said no wife could- be called upon to contribute to an establishment such has had been described with a common fund. His Honour adjourned the case for boartog of aruiuxiout this moyning,