TREATMENT OF WIFE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20364, 19 September 1929, Page 12

TREATMENT OF WIFE.

ELMSLEY CASE RECALLED.

DEFINITION OF THE LAW.

STATEMENT IN PARLIAME.NT.

[Bf TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION". ] WELLINGTON, Wednesday.

1,1./ Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. M. Wilford, made a statement in the House to day in reference to a question recently asked by Mr. J. McCombs (Labour —Lyttelton). Mr. McCombs asked: " Whether, if the law is that a man may beat, illtreat and starve his wife, and, provided she can run away and doc-3 not do so, the husband cannot bo convicted of an offence, ho will have the law altered so that the plea that she could, have run away from her own home will not defeat the end 3 of justice ?" Mr. Wilford said he had promised to obtain the opinion of the Solicitor-General on the subject. The Solicitor-General had advised that the law was not as assumed in the question Ho stated that in a case of a man beating his wife he could Le charged with assault as in other cases, and, if convicted, punished accordingly. If ho failed to supply by with adequate means of maintenance she might apply to a magistrate under the Destitute I'ersons Act for an order that he should pay her a reasonable sum for her maintenance. If lie were guilty of persistent cruelty to her she could bo granted summary separation, maintenance and custody of any children.

Tho Minister said tho law appeared, therefore, to give a wife ample means for obtaining redress for any ill-treatment by her husband. In tho caso which had probably caused the question to be asked proceedings had been taken by the poliro under a section of tho Crime 3 Act designed for the protection of persons who, by reason of mental or physical defects or ill-health, were dependent on others and unablo to withdraw themselves from such caro or to provide for themselves. It had appeared when the proceedings had been instituted that Sirs. Elmsley had been in that position. In the Supreme Court, however, her evidence had shown that sho had had relatives to whom she might have gone, that sho had had both the opportunity and means to do so if the had wished, and that neither her mental nor physical condition had prevented her from doing so. It had appeared that she had preferred to remain with her children and submit to harsh treatment rather than live apart, with the risk of separation from them.

The Minister said thf> question of proceedings for assault 1 been considered in that case, but ov.uig to tho lapse of time (some seven or eight years) since the last assault that could havo been proved, and the indefinite naturo of the evidence, it had been considered that such a charge could not have been sustained.