WIFE'S COSTS IN DIVORCE

NZ Truth, Issue 882, 21 October 1922, Page 3

WIFE'S COSTS IN DIVORCE

" Guilty Petitioner " to Pay

A Peculiar Case,

When honeymoon love has run its course and the once happy ones drift apart with a mutual pact to henceforth be separated, has wifie the power to pledge the credit of hubby, who has agreed to pay her a cash, allowance for his freedom? This was a poser recently <put to Magistrate Widdowson at Christchurch on which he delivered an interesting judgment. The case was peculiar and arose out of the legal tfirm of Slater. Sargent and Dale claiming £118 £s from Andrew Duncan Boag, a mechanic, who hangs out his shingle at the thriving rural village of Rotherham. According to the statement of claim the plaintirfs acted as solicitor for defendant's wife, Constance Lightfoot Boag, and she incurred costs to the amount claimed m successfully defending a suit for the dissolution df marriage brought by Andrew m March last. Lawyer Twyneham, who put the case for his legal confreres, said the other side sought to establish that the rule of law should be abrogated, and contended he was setting up a perfectly logical affirmative defence against an established law. When Boag brought his action for divorce he lost his suit, being designated "A GUILTY PETITIONER." The wife was forced into Court, and no divorce was granted to the erring Andrew. Lawyer W. \J. Sim put up a cute, defence to t|ry and save his client from the hefty claim of the rival firm of "Costs." He first tried the old nonsuit game, contending that the wife had not authority to bind< her hubby's credit. The parties had .lived > apart"* under a deed , of separation, which provided for suitable maintenance being paid to Constance and her kiddies. Under this deed an indemnity was given to Andrew, provided payments were made regularly and the wife undertook to maintain and support herself and her children and. discharge all her own debts. On the non-suit point being ruled -out, Lawyer Sim said it was admitted that the annuity had been paid regularly and the children had been pro-

perly maintained and educated, but the proposition the Magistrate had to decide was whether or not the deed had the effect of negativing Mrs. Boag's authority to pledge her husband's credit. 'It was further submitted that they had mutually agreed to live apart and the maintenance agreed! upon was paid, therefore the wife had no authority to bind her husband. *■ The S.M.:But for the deed, would you argue that a solicitor could not bring an action for his costs? : Lawyer Sim: It all depends on the deed. Lawyer Twyneham admitted as a rule that a wife could not pledge HER HUSBAND'S CREDIT, for necessities when she was separated and receiving an allowance, 'tout she could do sp for costs. The husband m this case had made it necessary for Mrs. Boag to. incur the expenses. After a d«al of. delving into musty old- law books and quoting yards of legal argument bearing on the points at issue the ;S.M. said the matter was all; very interesting but he would take time to" consider the case. : In giving judgment later Magistrate Widdowson remarked that when a husband's misconduct hadi made .& separation necessary the wife - was justified m pledging his credit. The literal interpretation , of the law had to be modified' m such circumstances. "The N wife had the necessary authority to pledge the costs," said , the Magistrate, and added: "I shall, therefore, give judgment for platntiffa, but only for taxed costs."

One couple has/ solved the high, rent problem. They both work nights and sit m the park m the daytime.