HIS LOVE AND HIS MEANS

Taranaki Daily News, 23 October 1930, Page 11

HIS LOVE AND HIS MEANS

MONEY MINUS HAPPINESS A PROFESSORIS INVESTMENTS RE-MARRIAGE CONTRACT CDAIM. , By Telegraph.—Pres® Association. Wellington, Last Night. An alleged pre-marriage contract by her husband to settle on her ail the income from his investments was relied upon by Hinemoa Corelli Charlotte Richards in an action for specific performance or £lO,OOO damages against David Richards, retired university professor, Otago, in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Ostler. Letters of proposal of marriage and acceptance were read, in the course of which Richards wrote: “If you will only say the word all the income from my investments shall be made over to you to do as you like with. I want you to know that, at any rate.” Plaintiff claimed that the letter constituted an offer to her that in consideration of her consenting to marry him defendant would make over or settle the whole of his income from investments, which consisted of mortgages of land, shares and debentures to the value .of about £20,000, and in pursuance of that contract plaintiff gave up. her practice as a solicitor and was married to defendant on February 19, 1929. The defence is founded on a number of grounds, including a claim that no contract exists in writing, also that plaintiff four months after marriage withdrew from cohabitation and lived apart from her husband, thus breaking a condition of the contract that the of husband and wife should exist in fact as well as in name.

Counsel for the plaintiff mentioned during the hearing that plaintiff had married defendant and borne him a child, and they were entitled to insist that he should carry out his share of the contract.

• In cross-exa'mination plaintiff was asked “A few lines down you say, ‘lt is you and you alone, my love, I want.’ What does that mean?” .

Plaintiff replied that meant his love and also what he possessed.

To another question she said, “I told him when he proposed to me and stressed his financial position that money did not always bring happiness.” His Honour o'bseryed that the financial position of the prospecti-e husband was behind the mind of every woman, and it was legitimate that it-should be so. “I do not think it is necessary for me to reserve the decision,” His Honour said in giving, judgment non-suiting the plaintiff. In his opinion the letters on which the claim was based did not constitute a definite promise of a marriage settlement. The purpose of the defendant had not been more than to express in a vague statement the terms of the marriage settlement and that he intended to lavish his income upon the defendant.

Clearly on the other ground also the plaintiff would have to be non-suited for the Statute of Frauds said clearly that all arrangements must :be in writing and the plaintiff admitted that some of the terms :'of. the'-alleged arrangement were not in writing.

“I think it would be very unfair of me to comment in any way at. present,” His Honour said, it seems to me that there will probably be further litigation before the court concerning the matrimonial differences and the cause of leaving.” He hoped the parties would be wise enough, to settle the question out of court. No costs would be allowed and the plaintiff would be non-suited.