WIFE MAINTENANCE.

NZ Truth, Issue 283, 26 November 1910, Page 6

WIFE MAINTENANCE.

A Timaru TrottiHe. The domestic woriaes of Evelyn Theresa Flood and Horatio SkiWner Flood had been wandering m '.and out of the S.M.s ..Court, Tim&ru, for -some time past, Theresa being m the position of a petitioner for maintenance. The married lnisetry is fairly long standin-g. Horatio was a Commercial traveller, : and when breaking point wf/s reached he entered into a private agreement to pay the missus _£l a week and give her the youngest kiddie. TJnfortu-

nately, he became incapacitated, had to retire from the bagman business, and is now employed m khe "humble capacity of grocer's assistant. His payments to his spouse fell off, and she appealed through the court and Magistrate Day for maintenance. Until recently it was one of those everlasting! . cases that threatened, like tlie brook, to go on for ever. It had some interest on account of • the point of law which it raised. Lawyer Emslie. for Horatio, contended that the covenant made between Horatio and Theresa must be considered binding. Horatio had covenanted not to proceed against her husband for any separate maintenance money or alimony or for cohabitation. His Worship pointed Out that Horatio had broken the covenant by taking away the youngest child, which under the covenant was to have been .left with the mother. Mr Elmsl'ie contended that a breach . of' this one clause didn't nullify tlie Mother clauses. He pointed out' that, there were only two causes that could put an end to the deed : (I) 'misconduct oi the part of either party, and (2) cohabitation. -Neither of these causes had been shown In this case. If the court 'made an order there would be two orders m existence against Horatio, who had sustained rupture of the heart and had been compelled to give up his violent existence on the road. His screw now as grocer's assistant was £•2 5s a week, and it cost Horatio 35s % a week to keep himself and children.. This, was without making any allowance for the clothing of himself and youngest kiddie. Theresa, it was pointed out, was m a position to keep herself, as she was earning 15s a week toiling for her father^.

His Worship remarked that the wife's earning capacity didn't relieve the husband of his responsibilities. Tiie missus didn't require to show iJiat she was destitute, although h'sr earning capacity might influence the amount of the order. A wife nxight even be justified m obtaining credit, and make her husband responsible for the amounts. The result of this covenant was simply that ( .the father hatf to support his daughter.;

Mr Raymond, for Theresa, said that apairt from common law there was a du-fcy upon the husband to support ■ his wife. .Horatio was primarily liable for her support, and lie. wasn't] able to contract himself ou*t >of "his liabilities. He applied for security.

His. Worship reserved his decision, and m another- chapter of the legal volume, ordered Horatio to pay 7s 6d per .week towards the support of Til/tress,, also to find security m the sp'm of £40. He was further ordered /to pay the cost of taking evidja.ee In Auckland, and a guinea. i.H;al solicitor's fee. He was given a month m which to find the security.