UNFORTUNATE MARRIAGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 August 1928, Page 9

UNFORTUNATE MARRIAGE

HUSBAND TO BE PAID £B5O

At the hearing of a matrimonial case at Southport, England, the wife said that in the course of her short married life her husband made her a “present” of a fur coat which cost £4O; but he bought it with her money. He then wrote and asked for another cheque, and she told him he “had a good cheek” when she had given him so much money already. The case was one in which Rebecca Saffman, of Southpori, a Scottish .Jewess, summoned h°r husband, Moses I l '. Saffman, a. master tailor, and asked for a. separation -order against him on the ground of neglect. The evidence for the wife was that they were married in October last, and within the first three months, she alleged, her husband borrowed from her sums amounting to £265. When she called a halt, said her counsel, Mr Brighouse, ho was never satisfied. He treated her abominably, and was at her all day trying to get money out of her. He said ho was not going to keep any man’s daughter for nothing.

Correspondence was read in which reference was made to a marriage dowry, Mr Brighouse observing that the contention of the defence was that the wife had agreed to pay her husband £B5O, and-that she had not fulfilled her bargain. “They are contending,” said Mr Brighouse, “that this gentleman is of such value in the marriage market that according to the Jewish rites he is entitled to say his wife agreed to give him £850.” ft was further stated that he had told his wife that the profits from his business amounted to from £l2 to £ll a week. Mr Brighouse hinted that proceedings would be taken to decide whether the money had been lent by the wife or not. Ten Years Taken off Her Age.

In cross-examination Mrs Saffman admitted that she gave, her age as 25 on the marriage certificate, whereas if, was thirty-five. She did this because her husband told her lo say she was 25 “to let the world know he had married a young girl.” She ad-

mitted that she still had over £4OO in the bank. ■ For the husband it was submitted that it was because his wife fixed her age at ten years younger than she really was that he married her. It was arranged that the wife should give' him a sum of money considerably in excess of the amount that had been already paid, in order that he might use it in the business. The money he had received had been spent partly on the wife, partly on the business, and partly on furnishing the house. He was barely getting a living from his business and had been living for some time on capital. In cross-examination Saffman said if. was the custom in the Jewish community for a bride to bring her husband a dowry, but he did not insist on receiving the money agreed on at fbe time of the marriage, because he trusted his wife. It was understood from the beginning that the object of the marriage was to increase the business. Mr Brighouse: She was not investing her money in a good business. — No. R was not the business she was invostipg her money in, it was you?— Yes. ’ You were the return for the £850? —That was the arrangement. She struck a bad bargain?—l don’t know. A separation order was granted, Saffman to pay his wife 30/- a week. Saffman asked that his wife should give the marriage lines to him as he find paid for them. Mrs Saffman: With my money. Tho defendant denied this, and the Clerl< pointed out that ho could get. a copy for ;i few shillings. He remarked fb.al the matter was one to be (' all with elsewhere. ‘,‘ln the meant:me. possession is nine points of the law." lie added.