WIFE'S LEGAL BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 83, 5 October 1933, Page 12

WIFE'S LEGAL BILL

HUSBAND'S LIABILITY

CLAIM BY SOLICITORS

RESERVED JUDGMENT

The liability of a husband for le^al expenses incurred by his wife in separation and maintenance proceedings against him formed the subject of a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. E. Page, S.M., !in tho Magistrate's Court today. Tll«> judgment related to a claim for £157 10s by Chapman, Tripp, Cookc, and Watson, barristers and solicitors, Wellington, against David James Richards, retired university professor, in respect of work allegedly done for his wife, Hinemoa Ccrelli Charlotte Richards, in maintenance and separation proceedings. Mr. Page awairded the plaintiffs £63 4s sd. In April, 1930, the defendant's wife consulted the plaintiffs regarding Imposition in relation to tho defendant, and as a result two sets of proceedings were taken on her behalf against the defendant, said Mr. Page in delivering judgment. The first was a suit, brought in the Supreme Court, .wherein she claimed specific performance of an alleged pre-nuptial contract for the settlement on her for life of the income from all the investments of the defendant, or alternatively the sum of £.10,000 for breach of such contract. Judgment went for the defendant. , Negotiations as to the possibility of a reconciliation followed without avail, and on January 19, 1931, the defendant's wife instructed the plaintiffs to bring the second set of proceedings, namely, proceedings in the Magistrate's | Court for an order for summary separation, for guardianship of their infant child, and for maintenance. These proceedings proved successful both in the Magistrate's Court ana, on appeal, in tho Supreme Court. The plaintiffs had now brought the present action, claiming to recover from the defendant the amount of their bill of costs for the work incidental to the latter set of proceedings (£157 10s)'. A WIFE'S AUTHORITY. According to'Halsbury,vol. 10:—" A wife has authority, by implication, of law, to pledge the credit of her husband for costs reasonably incurred by her in Irospect of the prosecution or defence of proceedings for a dissolution of tho marriage instituted by her or by her husband or in respect of proceedings for a judicial separation, the solicitor: acting for her being entitled in the event of success to sue the husband for all the extra costs reasonably incurred beyond those allowed, on taxation between party and .party.'' In Mr! .Page'a opinion the same principle applied in the case of successful I proceedings for, sunimary separation and maintenance, and he quoted the case of Chapman, Skerrett, Tripp, and Blair v. Marley in the Magistrate's Court in support of his contention. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover/ from the defendant their reasonable costs. DETAILS OF THE BILL. It remained to consider tho details of. the bill. Ho thojight.it was clear that substantially tho whole of the items from tho commencement of the account, April 2, 1930, down to the hoaring of the Supremo Court action, Octoj ber 22, 1930, were for work done priI marily for the purposes of such action. One of the major items in-this portion lof the account was on September 24 for the sum of £52 17a,6d for engrossing four copies* of the correspondence (running into, 470 folios) and this typing was clearly done for the Supreme Court action, but when that failed the typed material was subsequently used in the Magistrate's Court. So far as Mr. Page could see all the other work down to October 22 was in a similar position. The plaintiffs, however, stated that they had eliminated from^the bill every item referring solely to the Supreme Court action, and contended that the balance would have been necessary even if- it had not been done for the Supreme Court action. - Mr. Pago did not think that that was sufficient. Work in fact done for a Supreme Court action, though it might prove- useful and would have to be done for subseqnent Magistrate's Court proceedings, did not for that reason becoino part of such proceedings. If the Magistrate's Court proceedings had not been brought he did not see on what ground this portion of the account could have been recovered from the defendant, and the mere bringing of such latter proceedings could not, he thought, rendor liable to be recovered items not previously recoverable. The items down to October 22, 1930, wore therefore disallowed, but the subsequent items w-cre recoverable and he had taxed these on the account. In dealing with the amount to be allowed on taxation, concluded Mr. Page, it should bo mentioned that the Magistrate's Court case differed substantially tfoxa the ordinary easo of summary separation. The defendant was a man of substantial means, his investments amounting to aboout £20,000, and tho success of the wife's claim depended upon the proper, marshalling and presenting of a vast mass of material. lie thought that the employment of two counsel was justified. At the hearing of the caso Mr. W. P. Shorland appeared for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeared in person.