A WIFE’S VALUE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3818, 17 May 1927, Page 23

A WIFE’S VALUE.

ASSESSMENT BY JURY.

. AUCKLAND, May 14. lhe question of a wife’s value was discussed in the Supreme Court during the hearing of an undefended divorce action by Hector Horatio Barry, a stoker on H.M.S. Diomede, against Hellene Barbara Barry and Percy King, a taxi driver at Devonport, from whom, as co-respondent, £590 damages were claimed. Counsel for petitioner said the damages claimed represented merely petitioner’s financial loss through his marred marriage. Meeting his bride in England he had allowed her £1 a week until he could arrange for their marriage in New Zealand. Ho paid £45 for her passage to the Dominion, and after they were married in Auckland last August, he paid a £l5O deposit on a house at Devonport. He furnished it for another £l5O, and. when tie went fo sea again, left £l5O in the bank lest his wife should run AmH of funds. Upon nis return he found the house empty, the _ furniture gone, and bank balance vanished, while a private detective he had engaged had proof of respondent’s infidelity. It was likely that petitioner might now £1 — de P° sit P aid on the house. . Vi hen petitioner was detailing his l.nanciai outlay in connection with the marnage, including the purchase of an engagement ring for £l4, Mr Justice Stringer interrupted to point out that damages could not be assessed on such a basis, but merely on the value of the wife. “Why, petitioner might have bought her a £soo' ring,” he said.

His Honor, addressing the jury, said there was sufficient proof of adultery. The only question remaining was the assessment of damages, which in modern law could not be regarded as “punishment” in such cases, nor could regard be paid to petitioner s outlay. The damages must be based on the value of the unfaithful wife. In this case she possessed no property. What, then, was her consortion or social value? If it was held that a wife was a “loose” woman she was not much ■ use to her husband, who would be well rid of her. If, on the other hand, a wife had been deliberately seduced, the position was different. He thought this was a case for slight damages. The jury allowed £350 damages, and his Honor granted a decree nisi with costs against co-respondent on the lower scale.