CLAIM AGAINST HUSBAND

Hawera Star, Volume L, 23 October 1930, Page 5

CLAIM AGAINST HUSBAND

ALLEGED PRE-MARRIAGE CONTRACT A PROFESSOR’S INVESTMENTS (Bv Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 21. An alleged pre-marriage contract by her husband to settle on her all the income from his investments was relied upon by Ilinemoa Corelli Charlotte Richards in an action for specific performance or £IO,OOO damages against David Richards, retired university professor, Otago, in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Otsler.

Letters of proposal of marriage and acceptance were read, in the course of which Richards wrote: “If you will only say the word all the income from my investments shall be made over to you to do as you like with. I want ygu to know that, at any rate.” Plaintiff claimed that the letter constituted an offer to her that in consideration of her consenting to marry him defendant- would make over or settle the whole of his income from investments, which consisted of mortgages of land, shares and debentures to the value of about £20,000, and in pursuance of that contract plaintiff gave up her practice as a solicitor ond was married to defendant. oni February 19, 1929.

The defence is founded on a number of grounds, including a claim that no contract exists in ‘writing; also that plaintiff four months after marriage withdrew from: cohabitation and lived apart from her husband, thus breaking a condition of the contract that the relationship of husband and wife should exist in fact as well as in, name.

Counsel for plaintiff mentioned during the hearing that plaintiff had- married defendant and borne him a -child, and they were entitled to insist that he should carry out his share of the contract.

In cross-examination plaintiff was asked “A few lines down you say, 'lt is you and- you alone, my love. I want.’ What- does that mean?’’

Plaintiff replied that meant his love and also what he possessed. To another question she said. "I told him- when, he proposed to me and stressed' his financial position that money did not -always bring happiness. ’ ’

His Honour observed that the financial position, of the prospective husband was behind- the mind of every woman, and it was legitimate that it should be so.

“I do not think it is necessary for me to reserve the decision,” His Honour said in, giving judgment non-suit-ing plaintiff. In his opinion the letters on which the claim >w/as based- did not -constitute a definite promise of a marriage settlement. The purpose of defendant had not been, more than; to express in a. vague statement the l terms of the marriage settlement and that he intended' to lavish his income upon ;the defendant.

Cleanly on the other ground also plaintiff would ha've to be non-suited, for the -Statute of Frauds said clearly that all' arrangements must be in writ- 1 ing and plaintiff admitted that some of the terms of the alleged arrangement were not in- writing. “I think it would, be very unfair of me to comment in -any way at present” i His Honour said, "because it seems to me that there will probably be further litigation, before the count concerning the matrimonial differences and the cause, of leaving.” He hoped the parties would be wise enough to settle the question out of court. No costs would be allowed and plaintiff would be nonsuited.