PAYMENTS TO WIFE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 125, 31 May 1927, Page 9

PAYMENTS TO WIFE

BY HUSBAND'S FIRM

NOT COUNTED AS MAIN-

TENANCE

Whether a man who has been legally separated from his wife is entitled to be given credit under the deed of separation for gratuitous payments made to her by a firm for which he had worked for a considerable period was the subject of a reserved judgment given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day. The case was one in which Ruhina Mason, of Otaki (Mr. 6. G. Watson) sought to recover from Robert Little Mason, of Wellington (Mr. P. W. Jackson) £170 3s 4d, balance allegedly duo under a deed of separation entered into between the parties. The facts were that the deed; which was entered into on 2nd October, 1924, gave the custody of the one child of the marriage to the plaintiff, the defendant agreeing to pay or cause to be paid to his wife £10 16s 8d each month. In September, 1924, the defendant, who had for nineteen years been in the employment of Messrs. Levin and Co;, Ltd., tendered his resignation. He was at that time in the Blenheim branch, of the firm. In a letter written by the managing director of the company to the Blenheim manager on 17th October, 1924, it was stated: "With a view to making* it as easy as possible for Mason, you may extend the time for his resignation to take effect until the end of October, r.nd if he behaves himself during this period you may pay his wife, monthly, half-pay for twelve months, i.e., until 31st October, 1925." These payments, amounting to £15 a month, were duly made by the company to the plaintiff. "It is claimed by the defendant that, in adjusting accounts with his wife, ho is entitled to be given credit for these payments, totalling £180, as being moneys paid or, caused to be paid by him, or on his behalf, under the deed of separation," aaid Mr. Page in giving his decision. "It is shown that jio payments under the deed were made by the plaintiff himself for more than a year. In March, 1925, when the defendant was about five months in arrear under the deed, the plaintiff issued a summons against him for the amount outstanding. The defendant, after taking legal advice, allowed judgment to go by default against him. A judgment summons was subsequently issued, but was withdrawn upon the defendant's promising to pay the amount. "I have come to the conclusion that the .defendant's claim for credit in respect of money thus paid by his late employers to his wife cannot be supported. It has been the custom of this company to make monthly payments of this nature where an old employee voluntarily leaves their service, and,'in some cases, where the resignation is a forced one, to the wife or the dependants of the employee.. These payments are in the nature of a bonus given by way of reward for the long years of service rendered by the employee; but they are, however, entirely gratuitous, and in this case the defendant has no right to demand any payment, and had no voice , in the disposal of the money which the company decided to grant to his wife. "...

"Wheni Mason entered into the deed of separation he was aware that his employers contemplated making the payments, and it was open to him to have included in the deed a provision giving him credit for the amounts to be so paid, if such was the intention of the parties. If the matter stood there it seems to me doubtful whether the defendant could have successfully resisted the plaintiff's present demand. But the matter was carried further when the summons was issued and judgment was entered in 1925 on the claim for the first five instalments. By allowing judgment to go against him in an action which raised the identical issue that is raised in the present one the defendant has, I think, concluded the matter in favour of the plaintiff. . . ." Judgment was accordingly entered for tho plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs to scale.