DESERTING WIFE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12529, 15 April 1935, Page 3

DESERTING WIFE

SUBSEQUENT COSTS OF CONFINEMENT' claim against husband. A unique case arose ’at the Hast ings Magistrate’s Court when Mr T G. L. Hewitt. S.M., was. called upon to decide whether a- man was liable for accouchement expenses when Ins wife ha c | left him some months previously without cause. No authorities having a hearing on tlio case could! bo cited and His Worship reserved his decision in order to look up .some authorities in which a husband was held responsible for the funeral expenses of his wife where she had previously left him without cause. Tlie problem for the Magistrate to solve nroso in a claim for '£l2 lffs medical expenses by a- doctor of a. private hospital in Hastings against? a defendant residing, at Dannevirke. The defendant’s wife entered the private hospital in February for tlio purpose of confinement and th P doctor. in giving, evidence in support of his claim, stated that the fetus was dead and that in order to save the woman’s life certain medical treatment was essential. . Tho defendant stated that his wife left him in October I net without, any cause whatever. Ho was still maintain in*? his home in the. hone that she would return, 'As sh*> had' not replied to In's lotto"!? he li n d been nut: of r*"p/'t. w‘-'tb. lier and she entered Ihe private hospital in ouestion without his knowledge. On learn in,-* that she was an inmate be telephoned the hospital girino- a message for his wife, in which, be Intimated! llmh he would visit, her and hr'nnr mi.vl h 'n'* she u-e " 'cd aivl fbe rcplv he'recrivpd .was that it won 1 /! not he worth Iris while making- the trip. Cross-examined t- Mr H. Holderness, who appeared l for Ihe plain'llfl Ibe defendant snirl hr. did nn(. d'env the paternity of the child aridrealised that if >t had Wed Tie would have boon responsible for Us maintenance. Mr E. .T. AY. Hallc-ii, who appeared for tho -defendant, said that the question was -what was his liability to the doctor. He pointed out thal instructions for tho defendant’s wile to enter the hospital were given "> her motheJ’, who was Hi outsider, and ho contended Gint the doctor should look to that person for his. fees. Mr. Hailett quoted a- number of authorities, the latest of which occurred in 185.1, in. which a. husband was hold lesponsible 1f >i- his wife’s funeral costs although she had lei? him and! lived with his brother for a number of years previously. Mr HolderneSs submitted- that it was a. case in which His Worship bould fairly exercise the equity and rood conscience clause. His Worship said! ip appeared! to him that the case before him did not come within the purview of the authorities quoted. Counsel submitted that authorities having an exact bearing on the case could not be found 1 . His Worship remarked l that he would he interested to know on what principle the exceptions regarding liability for funeral expenses arose. If a possibility arose to make exceptions in those cases it might be equally possible to make an exception in this ease. He was surprised to know that a similar ease had! not arisen previously in which medical, enpenses were involved. In liis opinion, this was an exceptional case brought about by the a °t of the defendant-. There was also the question of agency or necessity. His Worship reserved his decision in ord'er to look into the authorities.