HUSBAND SUES WIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12278, 23 May 1903, Page 2 (Supplement)

HUSBAND SUES WIFE.

INTERESTING VIEWS ON MARRIED

WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT. An action brought by Charles Arnold Waters, formerly a cabdriver, of 76 years of age, to recover £155 from his wife, who carried on a corn chandler's business, and was a lady some 30 years younger than her husband, was heard on April 4, before Mr. Justice Lawrence and a jury.

Mr. Macoun, for plaintiff, said that about the end of November, 1901, plaintiff met with an accident, and in an action which he brought against Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son recovered £250 as damages. He paid £50 to his solicitor, and with the balance proposed to buy a new cab and horses. Plaintiff handed the money to his wife to mind for him. He had over and over again asked for the return of the money, but had been unable to get it. When plaintiff married defendant she was the widow of a corn chandler, and her two sons treated plaintiff so badly that he was obliged to leave the house. He afterwards had to go into the workhouse, but was now living on the charity of his nephew.

Plaintiff having given evidence, Mrs. Caroline Waters, defendant, was called, and said that the money in question was given to her as an absolute gift for her kindness to plaintiff during his illness following upon the accident. Her husband never asked her for the return of the money, but left the house on March 9 and never returned. She was always ready to provide a home for her husband.

In cross-examination, defendant denied that her grown-up son had ill-treated plaintig ; in fact, he was kindness itself to him. In any quarrel it was only natural that her son should take her part. She did not know that her husband went into the workhouse until the guardians informed her of it.

In re-examination defendant said the home was there for plaintiff to walk into.

Mrs. Eliza Davis gave evidence to the effect that when plaintiff gave the money to his wife he said, Here, Carry, is the money, and I wish it was more."

Mr. Mallinson, for defendant, submitted that the action failed, as the husband had no right of action against his wife in the High Court. As to it being an absolute gift there was evidence of that, and the only question was what should be allowed for maintenance.

Mr. Macoun having replied, Mr. Justice Lawrence said that since the passing of the Married Woman's Property Act be could not see that the wife had any duties at all, and transactions between husband and wife must be looked upon as matters of business. Looking at it as a matter of business, and considering the fact that up to the accident the husband bad contributed 30s a week, he came to the conclusion that it was not a. gift, that plaintiff could sue, and that he was entitled to the return of the £155.

Judgment was therefore given for the amount claimed with costs.