A HUSBAND'S PROPERTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20115, 28 November 1928, Page 14

A HUSBAND'S PROPERTY.

WIFE SEEKS HALF SHARE.

SEQUEL TO THEIR SEPARATION

"LAW NOT FAIR TO WOMEN."

[DY TELEGRAM.—OWN COJUIESPO.NPENT.J WELLINGTON, TucscWy.

" The law is not quito fair to women iu New Zealand," said Mr. Justice Reed when hearing a caso in tho Supreme Court to-day in which a husband and his wife speared as parties to an action involving a claim for a share in a properly or for judgment for moneys lent. " In Canada, I think it is, everything owned by the husband or tho wife, is equally owned by both," said His Honor. "In this caso it is quito clear that the woman helped her husband to build tip the man's property, but as far as the law is concerned I don't think she is entitled to ajiy sharo of that." The plaintiff in tho case was Mabel Constance Alice Cullen, and the defendant was Cephas John Cullen. a driver, of Lower Ilutt. In her statement of claim plaintiff said they wcro married in December, 1918, and separated in July, 1927. In April, 1918, plaintiff paid £2O to defendant as a deposit on land at Lower Hutt. The defendant paid all his earnings, with the exception of five shillings a week for out-of-pocket expenses, to plaintiff and all moneys received wcro banked by her in her name on behalf of both parties. The account was augmented by money paid to plaintiff out of the estate of her former husband, and it belonged to the plaintiff and defendant equally. The title to the land was taken in the name of the defendant.

The statement added that plaintiff paid £l7O from her former husband's estate into the account and they regarded the land and improvements as belonging to tlicin equally. Since the separation plaintiff had asked defendant to transfer to her one half or a share in the land, hut the request had been refused. Plaintiff claimed a declaration that she was entitled to a half share in the properly or judgment for £l7O for moneys lent by plaintiff to defendant. The defence disputed the claim for the half interest in the land and maintained there was no justification for it. It was submitted that the utmost the wife was entitled to receive was £l5O. "I sympathise with Airs. Cullen, in fact villi every woman in a case oi' this kind, because the law bears harshly upon them," said His Honor. Defendant had married o.i nothing, but, as a result of his wife's hard work had come out after eight or ten years in a fair financial position. He did not think the money was ever intended as a gift and plaintiff was entitled to recovery. His Honor said he felt disposed to treat plaintiff liberally. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £2OO, with costs according to scale.