WIFE AND HUSBAND

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 10, 13 January 1932, Page 7

WIFE AND HUSBAND

A LOAN PUZZLE

"Itia presumed in law. that anything handed/by-the husband to ; tbe.wife(.i» a gitVjbut- the .reverse ' position !is. obscure, and in these days' of sex equality the legal - position ...Vetween. hus band and. wife is difficult; to decide.' *- Judge H. J. Bowlands made this comment at Clerkenwell County Cour.t wheai he gave judgment for '.Mrs. .Mary; Wyllie, of Hornsey,'who sued her.husband,- Mr:: Charles; Wyllie,- a: decorator* for. £50 lent, with interest, says tha "Daily Mail.?' ' '"■ •"■ ". ':'. The issuo• in the case .-was".• whether the .money handed by: the' yife^tp'^tha husband from a legacy left-tor her;wasa- gift, or a loan.- The-,-> couple..' -•wera living happily together .at the. time, -but they aro now separated. 1 . ' ' 'Judge 'Kowlands, in giving 'judgment, said that morally the- husband -was under an obligation,to repay the money,; and 'legally there was evidence of an. implied contract: of loan.'iv his alleged remark to his wife when ihe received the. bank note for .£SO, "Well,-if I have it, don't keep'"slinging."it"."in.' my; face.'-' -. ';•■..- '*■.-. '- . .■'■■■ If the wife handed her husband a, sek of golf clubs, it was by,its-very natura a gift. Ifthe wife handed him: a canteen of cutlery, which was: for their joint use, what was' the,position.-'-if, the couple separated? Was ,;the' cutlery, divided?: ' , : : ■ ■ , -: ; ' 'Mr. Pugh, for the : husband,-argued that the £50 wascontribiitedvby 'the wife to the family pool lor " futura happiness and prosperity. - Unfortunately the vision of happiness did not materialise. What h appeued ;'when•': ths money was handed over! was' mot affected by any subsea,uent ■ relatibuship or lack of it between husband and wife. Because the couple separated the transaction was 'not/changed from, a gift to aloaii. ■ •"" '.'■ Mr. Garland, ior the wife, contended that if niouey was paid by:one person, to another merely, and; nothing else, there was an implied contract to repay. The position between a married couplo was not aiieeted by what happened between them afterwards^ ' ;: . j The husband, in cross-esaminatibnj •said he thought that all the. £175 left t.o his wife by her father .should hava been handed over to him. . . ; Mr. Garland: '.'That is the old; common law idea of a husband. donrlSSSting his wife and taking all her,property,"