HUSBAND AND WIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18180, 28 August 1922, Page 8

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

PROCEEDINGS AT LAW.'. RULED OUT OF ORDER. ] ONLY THE DIVORCE' COURT. [by telegraph.—special wbpobtek-3 WKLLJKGTQN. SaturdayThat a; man and wife, cannot go to , litigation against each other, except in the Divorce Court, was a pronouncement made by Mr. Justice Sahnond at the Weilington Supreme Court yesterday. His Honor stated that there was a distinct ruling in the English Court© to this effect. The case under review was one of the many actions which have followed the irrevocable breach between Abraham Wailey Mahomed Salaman, a Hindu herbalist, of Auckland, and his divorced European wife, Marjorie Salaman. The wife was now seeking to recover £1000 damages from her ex.husband for alleged unreasonable and malicious persecution. The parties were married in Wellington, but after the birth of Ayesha, agreed to separate, Salaman going to Auckland and agreeing to provide for the-maintenance of Mrs. Salaman and the_child, who remained in Wellington. ' Divorce proceedings were instituted in August, 1919, by Salaman on the ground of-the misconduct of Mrs. Salaman in Wellington. The action was brought in October, lUzi,' and a decree nisi was granted in the Auckland Court, the child, no order regarding whom was made, remaining in the mother's care. Salarnan, after several attempts to. secure the child, instituted habeas corpus proceedings, with which Mrs. Salaman did not comply. ... Plaintiff alleged that defendant maliciously and without reasonable or proper cause, caused and procured an order for a writ of attachment against her, caused her to be arrested at Auckland and taken, firlt to the police station at Auckland and afterwards to Wellington, where she was detained in custody at the Point HalsweU Prison until May 15, 1922. When plaintiff was brought to the Supreme Court at Wellington she was, by order of the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, on May 15, 1922, released and dismissed from custody, no charge being made against her. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed £1000 damages. . Defendant admitted the procuring of the orders for -the writs, but contended that he had taken the step only on his legal rights, and that the step was" made necessary solely by plaintiff's refusal and neglect to perform the orders of the Court in regard to the custody of the child. • , ■ . Before plaintiff was called to give evidence, Mr. Myers, for the defendant, asked leave to amend the plea of defence by the addition of a clause relying on the fact that, as on all material dates in the statement of claim, th* parties, as the decree absohrie-was not then pronounced, were husband and wife, and the action was not tenable. , His Honor said he was surprised that this defence was not advanced in the first place) it seemed to hira the obvious defence. , . ~ Mr. Jellicoe was allowed in the meantime to call evidence. , Marjorie Salaman, the plaintiff, stated that if she got the custody of the chdfl she did not want a penny damages. The child was all she had fco live for. After hearing plaintiffs evidence, His Honor gave a nonsuit, without costs, on the point raised by Mr. Myers, remarking that there was a distinct ruling in the English Courts that man and wjfe could not go to litigation except Divorce Courts. . • ;.• . .-. ■■■