A WIFE WITH MEANS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18799, 28 August 1924, Page 11

A WIFE WITH MEANS.

QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE. EXHOTELKEEPER CHARGED. PARTIES MAKE SETTLEMENT. The question whether a man is liable for maintenance of his wife, even though she may have means of her own. was argued before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday. Frederick Francis Fabian, aged 50 (Mr. Prendergast), was charged that he intentionally left New Zealand without making adequate provision for the maintenance of his wife, Annie Letitia Fabian (Mr. Finlay). Defendant left New Zealand in July, being subsequently arrested in Australia and brought back to Auckland. Mr. Finlay said there were two adult children of the marriage. Fabian had at one time been licensee of the Shamrock Hotel Annie Letitia Fabian stated that she married defendant, in February, 1898, and lived with him until last January. Shortly after this date she commenced divorce proceedings which had not yet eventuated. The date of hearing was "fixed for June 11, and the day before defendant made a written agreement, on the back of a registered envelope (produced) whereby witness was to withdraw the action and he was to pay her £5 a week maintenance. At that time defendant owned three motor-cars, on one cf which witness had paid a deposit of £200. Ha had not given her any money since January. At this' stage the name of a woman with whom defendant was alleged to have been friendly was mentioned, but the magistrate considered it w 7 as irrelevant. Ownership of Three Houses. Continuing, complainant said her net yearly income was £90 from three houses she owned. When she was living with defendant he allowed her £5 a week, but he generally borrowed it all from her. To Mr. Prendergast: Defendant did not pay a deposit on the Sentinel R<*d property. Witness paid a deposit of own money. She estimated the value of the other two properties she owned at about £700 each. To Mr. Prendergast: She had a considerable quantity of jewellery which her mother had given her; her husband had given very little. Worth about £500?— No, £100, replied witness, highly amused. Mr. Prendergast: Wati your husband not anxious to stop the divorce when he made the offer of'maintenance?—-No, I think he wanted to get away with another woman. Complainant said she bad owned a toilet business, but she made it over to her daughter and now derived no income from it, although she still signed the cheques. Mr. Prendergast: Did you not take £52 10s from the till at the hotel and leave an LO.U. ?—Yes. When?—lt would be in October, 1923. The case was not proceeded with in March, as originally intended, continued witness, because defendant said he was anxious to look round for another hotel. The caie was then adjourned so that complainant could produce her bank pass-book. . '. Contentions for the Defence. On resumption Mr. Prendergast said the last deposit had been made last November and complainant now had £68 3s to her credit. He contended there was no case to answer. Complainant admitted the ownership of two houses worth about £1500, as well as an apartment house, which she would not sell for less than £2500. There was £5C standing to the credit of her daughter in regard to the toilet business, and it was idle for complainant to assert she had no financial interest in it when she was signing the cheques. In addition, there was the jewellery and a small bank balance, so that she could not claim to be a destitute person or that she should be kept by her husband. Further, she had started the divorce proceedings about January and up «to June had not formally demanded maintenance from defendant. If she had.been destitute was it likely she would have waited that long ? Her husband had made the offer of maintenance finally because a divorce would have prevented him getting a license to conduct an hotel. However, his chances were gone in that direction since he had been arrested and brought back from Sydney, but the divorce was still hanging over his head. When complainant had applied for a warrant for defendant's arrest, she had not told the magistrate she owned the' two houses at Grey Lynn. Mr. Poynton: Defendant is entitled to £0 to the Supreme Court for trial. Mr. Prendergast: He wants to be dealt with summarily. Mr, Finlay said Mr. Prendergast had based his argument on whether, because his wife had sufficient property, of p her own, a husband had any legal obligation to maintain her. Counsel submitted that the obligation of a husband was to maintain his wife. Because she had money he could not desert her. If defendant thought he was doing right why did he lea\ r e New Zealand under an assumed name. , '■*; Mr. Poynton: This is a peculiar case. Complainant was not destitute. The Act, I think, is to prevent gallivanting husbands from doing what they will always do—clear out and leave their wives destitute and dependent on the State. I would prefer to see them "settle the case between themselves. After a long discussion it' was announced that the parties had arrived at a settlement