WOMAN’S CLAIM TO ESTATE

Southland Times, Issue 24211, 22 August 1940, Page 8

WOMAN’S CLAIM TO ESTATE

BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE CONTRACTED (United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, August 21. Whether a widow by contracting a marriage which turned out to be bigamous had thereby lost the rights to the income from her first husband’s estate, which was to be paid her so long as she remained a widow, was the question to be determined in a case heard in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was Catherine Smith, otherwise Hitches, and the defendant, John William Bowden, as trustee of the estate. For the plaintiff, Mr R. Twyneham said the action was of a friendly nature brought by the plaintiff to establish her right to the income of h/ husband’s estate. She was the widow of James Smith, who died in 1930 at Rangiora. The action was taken under the Families’ Protection Act. An order of the Court had been made giving her the net income of the whole estate during her widowhood. The point at issue was whether she was now a widow or the wife of George Alfred Hitches. She had gone through a form of marriage with Hitches at Suva in June 1934 and had lived with him for two years. It was alleged that this marriage was bigamous as Hitches had a wife living at the time of his marriage with the petitioner, and this real wife did not die until October 13, 1935. Since that time moneys had been accumulating and the trustees had not paid them over as the marriage had not been annulled. The plaintiff had formerly instituted proceedings for annulment of the bigamous marriage, but the question of the Court’s jurisdiction became so complicated that she had decided not to go on with those proceedings. Mr Twyneham contended that once it was proved that the marriage was bigamous the plaintiff became entitled to the income. If the marriage was bigamous then it was never a marriage at all.

With the consent of counsel for the defence his Honour agreed to allow the pleadings to be amended so that the case became a suit for the money and not for a declaration of status.

For the defendant Mr J. H. Upham argued that, no action was possible until the marriage at Suva had been annulled. Decision was reserved.