WIDOW’S CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 281, 22 August 1940, Page 10

WIDOW’S CLAIM

Income From First Husband’s Estate

BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, August 21

Whether a widow, by contracting a marriage which turned out to be bigamous, had thereby lost the rights to income from her first husband’s estate, which was to be paid to her so long as she remained a widow, was a question to be determined in a case heard in the Supreme Court . Plaintiff was Catherine Smith, otherwise Hitches, and defendant John William Bowden, as trustee of the estate. For plaintiff Mr. R. Twyneham said the action was of a friendly nature, brought by plaintiff to establish her right to the income of her husband’s estate. She was the widow of James •Smith, who died in 1930, at Rangiora. Action was taken under the Families Protection Act, and an order of tlie Court was made giving her the net income of the whole estate during her widowhood. Tlie point at issue was whether she was now a widow or the wife of George Alfred Hitches. She had gone through a form of marriage with Hitches at Suva in June, 1934, and had lived with him for two years. It was alleged that this marriage was bigamous, as Hitches had a wife living at the time of the marriage with petitioner, and this real wife did not die till October 13, 1935. Since that time moneys had been accumulating, an'd the trustees had not paid them over as the marriage had not been annulled.

Plaintiff had formerly instituted proceedings for the annullment of the bigamous marriage, but the question of the Court’s jurisdiction became so complicated that she had decided not to go on with those proceedings. Mr. Twyneham contended that, once it was proved that the marriage was bigamous, plaintiff became entitled to the in'eonie. If the marriage was bigamous then it was never a marriage at all. With the consent of counsel for the defence, his Honour agreed to allow Hie pleadings to bo amended, so that the case became a suit for money and not for declaration of status. For defendant, Mr. J. 11. Upham argued that no action was possible HU the marriage at Suva had been annulled. Decision was reserved.