HUSBAND’S VALUE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20870, 9 November 1929, Page 26

HUSBAND’S VALUE.

IS HE WORTH £5000? A WIFE'S STATUS. (From Our Own Cobresi^ndent.) SYDNEY,'October 31. In two States—New South Wales, and v ictoria —the courts have been asked to decide the value of a husband, the petitioner in each case being a woman who , has had occasion* to divorce her husband. The women are claiming £SOOO from other women based on the lose of their husbands society and partial support. The Full Court in Victoria has' decided that there was no cause of action revealed in the claim, as the proper remedy was for tnft WORI3H t 6 BUG divorced husband for maintenance. The Full Court of New South Wales has not yet given a decision on the point, but as the Victorian case is being taken to the Federal High Court, that court’s decision will probably be the guiding factor. Whether the wife in modern times is the servant of her husband was argued at great , length in the Victorian case. ■The parties are Mrs Violet May Wright, who is claiming £SOOO for the alleged enticement away of her husband, and Miss Ellen Cedzich. . Miss Cedzich denied that she had enticed the other woman’s husband away from bis home. Counsel who appeared for Miss Cedzich said that the fact that the husband had the right to his wife’s services gave him his right of action when he made a claim against a co-respondent for the loss of his wife, while the fact that the wife had no claim to the husband s services deprived her of the right of action for loss of consortium. Sir Isaac Isaacs (Chief Justice): Does the action lie to the husband because the wife is his servant? Counsel: No, not entirely, Dealing with a contention that because both busband aud wife could hold property they were on an equal footing as regards consortium, counsel contended that the Married Woman’s Property Acts were dot intended to increase the rights of women other than the capacity to hold property and prosecute actions. Loss bv a wife of the society and comfort of ‘her husband was not damage that the law recognised. , Sir Frank Gavin Duffy; Are the rights acquired by the wife in marriage the same as those acquired by the husband? Counsel: My contention is that consortium as far as the wife is concerned is made up of a number of elements, one of which is service. Sir Frank Gavin Duffy: A father can bring an action in respect of. his child. Can a child bring an action in respect of, his, father? Apparently the law still thinks that a father has control over his child and a husband control over his wife. The Chief Justice: And is entitled to her service. Counsel for Mrs Wright: Then it is about time the law woke up. Counsel for Miss Cedzich: The foundation of the husband’s action was the motion of a proprietary right in the wife. There is no injury to Mrs Wright in this case, because there is no ri~ht that Ts recognised by the law that has been infringed. Nor is there any damage of the kind that the law regards as sufficient, as in, the case of slander, to support an, action. I rely on the origin ot loss actions for loss of consortium, which was placed on the motion of service, the loss of which Las damaged the husband's business. The Chief - Justice quoted an English decision in which Lord Campbell said that the wife was not the servant of the husband. Sir Frank Gavin Duffy; If Lord Campbell is right, Mrs Wright can bring'her action. You must not forget that the tendency of modern judges is to trim and barber the common law to make it look presentable. The High Court has reserved its decision, and the judgment is being awaited with considerable interest in all States, for it is felt that if Mrs Wright is. successful many other actions will be taken against women who have figured in divorce proceedings. ,