MAINTENANCE OF A WIFE

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15002, 25 May 1912, Page 5

MAINTENANCE OF A WIFE

HER BETTING INVESTMENTS.

A REMARKABLE CASE.

The attention of Mr. C. C Kettle, S.M., was occupied at the Magistrate's Court yesterday by the case of Graham v. Graham, an application by Mary Margaret Graham for maintenance by, and separation from, her husband, George Graham. Mr. Prendergast appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. Haddow acted on behalf of the defendant.

In reply to a point raised by Mr. Haddow, Mr. Kettle ruled that the fact of tho wife having means of her own did not free the husband from certain obligations in the direction of providing maintenance for his wife. The extent,of the wife's means, however, might determine the amount payable by the husband.

Mr. Haddow called witnesses concerning the means of tho plaintiff. Mrs. Brflnton, with whom the plaintiff had lodged, stated that plaintiff had told her on one occasion that plaintiff had £500 in the bank in her mother's name. Plaintiff still owed witness £2 for board. On another occasion witness had indulged in a mild speculation, and entrusted £1. to plaintiff to put on a horse at the races. The horse won, but plaintiff was still in possession of the dividend and the £1 capital. The next witness, J. B. Graham, said that ho was the father of the defendant. Plaintiff had absolutely ruined his son. Plaintiff had told him that she possessed about £1200; later on, that she only possessed £800. Witness also deposed to finding a notebook, evidently a record of certain betting transactions, the amount involved being £1233. Plaintiff denied knowing anything at all about the book, although admitting that she did attend the races.

On one of the pages also was a reference to a 100 to 1 double, but witness said the largest amounts she had won at the races were £29 and £53 odd.

George Graham, tho defendant, said his wife once mentioned to him that she had £800 in the bank. He was now living with his father, and maintaining his five children..

Mr. Kettle, after ascertaining that the defendant would not again live with his wife, adjourned the case for three months, the husband agreeing to pay the sum of 10s per week. * ~