UNUSUAL CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 11 March 1930, Page 4

UNUSUAL CASE

MAINTENANCE ORDER AGAINST WIFE

ACTION FOR CANCELLATION

(By Telegraph—Press Association)

r t ’AUCKLAND, 10th March. Hie story of a man brought up in circumstances of 'great affluence and who recently obtained under the Destitute Persons Act an order for maintenance against his wife, from whom he is separated, was partially unfolded beiore Mr Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court. The case arose througn his wife, Mrs Gerald L. Stead, objecting to the order and seeking the intervention of the Supreme Court to cancel it Respondent was Gerald L. Stead. Putting the case for appellant, Mr Johnstone said the couple were married ”‘1909 and a marriage settlement of £IO,OOO was paid to trustees, who were to pay £3OO a year to Mrs Stead and the balance approximately £2OO, to the husband. The parties separated in 1926 and the balance of income, which formerly went to the husband, was paid to the wife for the education of the three children of the marriage. Last October Stead, whom the Magistrate decreed destitute, obtained an order for £5 a week against his wife, and counsel now asked his Honour to cancel this order. In the course of evidence for the defence Stead admitted that he went to live with a woman at Takapuna, but denied adultery. The woman was now in business with him and had nursed him through a serious illness. The case is not concluded. , AUCKLAND, This Day. 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 evidence given relative to Stead’s living with a woman at Takapuna. Asked what unhappy grievances he had against his wile prior to separation, witness said he liad been awav 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 of the habit. Mr 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 Honour: “If she is the same class; of woman as she says he is of a man*, is there any reason why she should refuse to maintain him because he is living with another woman?” Mr Johnstone: “That would make no difference. No wife should be forced to maintain ail able-bodied man carrying on business and keeping an establishment in which another woman is involved.”

Witness, continuing his evidence, said drinking on the part of his wife continued until the separation, although she had given frequent promises that it would never occur again. Differences also existed between them on financial grounds. At the time of the separation there were outstanding accounts, some of which were over £IOO, and witness had to sell his Cambridge property to meet his liabilities.

1 “I was drowning my sorrows,” said Stead, when asked what state he was in at the time of meeting the woman with whom he was Jiving at Takapuna. He confided his sorrows to her and her influence had led him to give up drink. He had asked her if he could stay at her furnished bach ; and the owner of the property had given him permission to erect a tent to sleep in. His Honour asked why the Magistrate had made an order against the' wife for £5 a week. Did it requirei £5 to support a destitute person? It appeared that the Magistrate had determined to do equity but he should have' considered only what amount was necessary to relieve a 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 nis livelihood. Mr Johnstone (to witness): “You sleep 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.”

• Air Johnstone: “She arrives there undressed?” Witness admitted that he had been living with the woman for 2i years. Air Johnstone: “You had* lived in lavish style most of your married life?” “No; I lived comfortably.” “Did you entertain lavishly in the Hotel Australia?” “No; not lavishly.” “As a sportsman would?” “I 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. Mr 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 money you agreed should be used for the education of your children?” “I think I am entitled to it.” Judgment was reserved in the Stead case. In cross-examination Stead said he would marry the girl after bringing divorce proceedings, as lie would no longer be blackmailed then. Counsel; “You made some vile aspersions against your wife.” Stead: “You drove me to it,”