A WIFE'S COSTS

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 29, 3 August 1921, Page 6

A WIFE'S COSTS

MUST BE PAID BY HUSBAND

Judgment was given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., to-day in a case, the main question in which concerned the right of a wife to pledge her husband's credit for legal costs and expenses incurred by her in instituting and conducting proceedings under the Destitute Persons Act,- .1910, for an order for summary separation and for maintenance.

In 1919, Messrs. Chapman, Skerrett, Tripp, and Blair were instructed to take proceedings against George Sims Marley, with a view of obtaining for the latter's wife a summary separation from the defendant and an order for maintenance and guardianship. , The wife's proceedings were successful. After quoting the general rule on the subject, and referring to English statutes, his Worship said that, in his opinion, there was nothing in the wording of the New Zealand statutes to suggest that it was intended that all questions of costs incurred, by the wife as between solicitor and client should be dealt with by the Court of summary jurisdiction. He thought that under the New Zealand statute the only costs that could be ordered to bo paid were the party and party costs payable to a successful litigant. He thought that the Common Law ride still prevailed, and that the defendant was liable for costs, which were shown to be necessaries, and •which were properly incurred in proceedings of the preseVit nature. It was urged on behalf of the defendant that the onus was upon the plaintiffs to show that the defendant's wife had not means of herself of paying for the services rendered. His Worship considered that the onns was upon the defendant to show that the wife had means. He did not think that that had been established. The material'that was before the Court, and the fact that the wife was compelled to take proceedings for maintenance against the defendant seemed rather to suggest that the reverse was the case, and that the wife was not adequately supplied with means to pay for the services rendered. He was of opinion, therefore, that- the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the costs from the defendant.

Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs, who were also granted the costs of the present proceedings. At the hearing, Mr. G. G. G. Watson appeared for tho nlainfciffs (Messrs. Chapman, Skorrett. Tripp. and Blair), and Mr. H. F. O'Lcary for the defendant (Marley).