WIFE v. HUSBAND

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 March 1930, Page 5

WIFE v. HUSBAND

UNUSUAL APPEAL CASE

AFFAIRS OF THE STEADS

(Per Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, March 10.

An appeal against a Magistrate s Court order requiring her to pay £5 a week to her husband, Gerald L. Stead, was made by Mrs Stead in the Supreme Court to-day. Stead obtained the order under the Destitute Persons Act last October, and an application by Mrs Stead for a variation or cancellation of it was dismissed by the Magistrate (Mr Cutten) last month. Mr t A. H. Johnstone, for Mrs Stead, said 'that the marriage took place in 1909, and by the marriage settlement £lo*ooo was paid to trustees, who were to pay from the income £3OO a year to Mrs Stead, and the balance, approximately £2OO, to her husband. The parties separated, and in April 1926, a deed of separation was entered into. The wife lived in Melbourne, with three children of the marriage. Under the deed of separation the balance of the income, which formerly went to . the husband, was paid to the wife for the education of the children, under certain conditions. The wife knew nothing of the Act proceedings, and when she discovered an order had been made, she decided to test its validity. Counsel said that at the hearing of last month’s application, it -was proved that Stead was living in adultery at Takapuna. He submitted that no wife in these days would be asked to maintain a husband who -was living in adultery. Two men living at Mulford, one of whom formerly worked with Stead in a fishing business, said that Stead and a woman generally called “Mrs Stead," lived in a tent and had their meals in a converted garage. They conducted an establishment known as the Tuku tea rooms.

Mr Mowbray, for Stead, said that Mr Johnstone had not emphasised the fact that the money was originally the property of Stead. At the time of his marriage, Stead set aside this sum of money and made a settlement on his wife. As time went on, his circumstances altered,_and he became destitute. He had endeavoured to earn an honest living, but he was not brought up to any trade or profession. It was admitted that he had lived on the same premises with a woman for the past three years. She was one who had looked after him during a serious illness, and was not in business with him. The allegation that he had been living in adultery with her was absolutely denied. . Stead, in evidence,, described the circumstances leading to his separation in 1926, and said that his wife had accused him of being drunk at one of the girls’ colleges at Hastings. He did not live with his wife after that She told him she did not want to see him again, and he next heard from her through her lawyers and her brother. They submitted the draft of the deed of separation. His wife told him that if he signed the deed she would let him have the interest on a sum of £2600 invested for him. He had asked her for this money, but never got anything. He went to live at Takapuna about three years ago, and tried to make a living at fishing and commission work. He answered every likely advertisement for six months, but no one would employ him, as he was too inexperienced. He became very ill, and the woman who was now with him in the shop nursed him. She gave up her position to nurse him. After his illness, he had been obliged to call a meeting of his creditors. His only asset was a section, which his brother took over from him at a price which enabled him to pay 10/- in the pound A man in Melbourne had been constantly writing to his wife to go there, and at the first opportunity she went. He had at one time been addicted to drink, but he had become teetotal, and it would be two years the next day since he had had a 1 drink.

Counsel produced a letter from one of the trustees, expressing the opin ion that under the marriage settle ment, Stead was entitled to all the income above £3OO. Witness said he approached his brother, who.advanced him £l5O to start a business at Milford. Answering Mr Johnstone, witness said he had never been drunk in his life. It was neuritis he had suffered from at Takapuna. He had been selling racehorses, and was to race meetings at Ellerslie, but not to many. He went to live with the woman at Taka puna, but did not pay her board, as he had nothing to pay with. She called him Gerald, and not “Daddy,” so far as he knew. He admitted that he shared the same tent with her. When he had sufficient money to go on with the proceedings, it was his intention to marry her. What earnings either oi them made went into the common fund.

Answering Mr Mowbray, witness said that his main object in going to the races was to put through sales of horses. That was one thing that hd knew quite a lot about. He owed £230 to two banks. Mr Johnstone said that no wife could be called upon to contribute tc. an establishment such as had beer described, with a common fund. His Honor adjourned the case for hearing of argument to-morrow.

HUSBAND’S ALLEGATIONS.

AUCKLAND, March 11

The hearing of the Stead maintenance case was resumed in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr. Mowbray, counsel for Stead, asked permission to further examine his client, in consequence of the evidence given relative to Stead's living with a woman at Takapuna. Asked what unhappy grievances lie had against his wife prior to the separation, witness said he had been away from home a great deal, attending race meetings in connection with his livelihood. Frequently, when he arrived home, he found his wife insensibly drunk. The first occasion was in 1914, He had engaged the services of medical men to break her off the habit.

Mr. A. H. Johnstone objected to this evidence, on the ground that the wife was absent, and it was impossible to challenge such statements. Stead ,could not put himself forward as a person without blame, and the circumstances of his life were such that his wife was excused from keeping him.

His Honor: If she is the same class

of woman as she says he is of man, is there any reason why she should refuse to maintain him. because he is living w'th another woman? Mi’. 'Johnstone: That would make no difference No wife should be forced to maintain an able-bodied man, cairyiag on a business and keeping an establishment in which another woman is involved. . Y, itness, continuing his evidence, said that drinking on the part of his wife continued until the separation, although she had given frequent promises that it would never occur again. Differences "iso existed between them on financial grounds. At the time of the separation there were outstanding accounts, some of which were over £luo, and v itness had to sell his Cambridge property to meet his liabilities. “I was drowning my sorrows,” said Stead, when asked what state he was 'n at the time of meeting the woman with whom he was living at Takapuna. He, confided his sorrows to her, and her influence had led him to give up drink. He had asked her if he comd stay at her furnished bach, and the owner of the property had given him permission to erect a tent to sleep m. His Honor asked why the Magistrate had made an order against the wife for £5 per week. Did it require £5 to support a destitute person? It appeared that the Magistrate had determined to do equity, but he should nave considered only what amount was necessary to relieve the man s wants. The reasons why he had attended race meetings were given by Stead. He said that the breeding and training of racehorses had been his livelihood. Mr Johnstone (to witness): You deep in the same compartment with the lady whose name has been mentioned?

■Witness: Yes, but in separate beds. Do you undress there? —Yes. She undresses in the bathroom.

Mr Johnstone: She arrives thereunIressed ?

Witness admitted that he had been living with the woman for two and ahalf years. Mr Johnstone: You had lived in a lavish style most of your married life? —No. I lived comfortably.

Did you entertain lavishly in the Hotel Australia?—No, not lavishly. Mr Johnstone: As a sportsman would?—l have seen them 100 per cent worse.

Witness denied that during the latter part of his life with his wife, he was almost constantly drunk. He had to attend to his business.

Mi- Johnstone: What was your business?—Farming and racehorses. You have won with racehorses in most of the big events in New Zealand?—Yes.

You won large sums? —Yes, £43,000 in eight years. You have tried to get back the money you agreed should be used for the education of your children? —I think I am entitled to it.

In cross-examination, Stead said that he would marry the girl after bringing divorce proceedings, as he would no longer be blackmailed then. Counsel: You made some vile aspersions against your wife. Stead: You drove me to it. Judgment was reserved.