WIFE SEEKS DAMAGES

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 November 1929, Page 3

WIFE SEEKS DAMAGES

AGAINST A WOMAN. MELBOURNE, October 24. The Full Court of the High Court today reserved judgment on an appeal by Mrs. Violet May Wright, of Alfred Square, St. Kilda, against a judgment of the Full Court of Victoria in an action in which she sued Mrs. Helen Cedzich, of Dickens Street, St. Kilda, claiming £5OOO damages. Mrs. Wright issued a writ, and subsequently pleaded that defendant had unlawfully alienated the affections of Mrs. Wright’s husband. Mrs. Cedzich moved, by summons, to have the case struck out, on the ground that no cause of action had been disclosed. The Full Court of Victoria made a declaration that the statement of claim was bad in law, and disclosed no cause of action. Against this, Mrs. Wright appealed to the Full Court of the High Court, consisting of the Chief Justice (Sir Adrian Knox), Mr. Justice Isaacs, Mr. Justice Duffy, Mr. Justice Rich, and Mr. Justice Starke.

Mr. Hudson, for defendant respondent, endeavoured to show that the right -which a husband had in respect to a wife was different at law from the right which a wife had in respect to the husband. Argument took place on the question whether the loss sustained by a husband deprived of a wife was similar to the loss of a servant or not. Mr. Justice Isaacs quoted authorities to show that it was comfort and society which was lost, rather than servile assistance. The Chief Justice smilingly suggested that that was “merely a polite way of putting it.” Mr. Hudson said that the foundation of a husband’s action was the idea that ho had a property right in the wife. Mr. Justice Duffy: You put it that the husband has some right which tho wife has not. Mr. Hudson: I do.