HUSBAND SUES WIFE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 136, 24 May 1933, Page 9

HUSBAND SUES WIFE

THIRTY YEARS’ SAVINGS “DIVISION AMONG LAWYERS.” Describing it as a tragedy and “a shocking thing tha. the parties should be dividing their savings among the lawyers instead of between themselves,’’ Mr Justice Maefarlan retired from the bench in a Melbourne Court the other day to enable counsel to settle an unusual action brought by a husband to recover money which his wife had saved, and a house which had been bought out of his wages over 30 years. The Judge’s action was not in vain. John Edward Varty, wheelwright, sued his wife, Rose Varty, claiming the house in which she was living, or, alternatively, a declaration that they were tenants in common. He also claimed an unspecified sum of money which she had saved out of his wages since their marriage in 1889. Varty said that the house was registered i« his wife's name merely for convenience. Mrs Varty denied that she held either the house or the money in trust for her husband. Counsel for Varty said that the parties had lived happily until 1931, when they had separated because of some* thing that to most people would seem an insufficient reason. Varty had been locked out of his home, and his wife had refused to live with him. After having for 30 years given every penny of his wages to his wife, either for housekeeping or for saving, Varty found himself on the verge of destitution, while his wife bad the house and about £7OO in the bank. Borne of the purchase money for the house had eomo out of Varty's bank account and some out of his wife’s. Varty had loat his job in 1930, and now the small capital on which he had been forced to live was reduced to 12s sd. Mr Justice Maefarlan (to counsel): They have saved all their lives and new they arc charitably disposed toward you. It seems shocking that they should be dividing this property among lawyers instead of among themselves. Counsel for Varty: It does seem shocking. My learned friend and I have made every effort to settle thio matter. The Judge: It is a tragedy, frittering away their savings in legal costs. Why did they separate? Counsel: Apparently there was a difference over a visit by Varty 's mother at Christinas, 1931. When Varty came home on New Year's Eve he found himself locked out. Saying that he did not want to be a party to “this tragedy,” the Judge retied to enable counsel to confer with their clients. Two hours later counsel told His Honour than an arrangement had been reached, and by consent the action was struck out.