HUSBAND SUES WIFE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7721, 2 June 1903, Page 2

HUSBAND SUES WIFE.

INTERESTING VIEWS ON MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY • ACT.

An action brought by Charles Arnold Waters, formerly a cabdtiver, of Seventysix years of age, to recover £155 from his wife, who carried on a corn chandler's business, and was a lady some thirty years younger than her husband, was heard on April 4, before Mr Justice Lawrence and a juiy. Mr Macoun, for plaintiff, said that about the end. of November, 1901, plaintiff met with an accident, and in tin action which he brought against Messrs W. il. Smith and Son recovered £250 ad damages. He paid £50 to his solicitor^ and with the balance proposed lo buy a now cab and horses. Plaintiff handed the money to htS wife to mind for him. He had over and over 'again asked' ior the' return of the money, but had. been unable to get it. Wnen pkintiff married: defendant she was ti:e widow of a cojai^chandler, and her two sons treated plaintiff so badly that he was ! obliged to leave the house. He afterwards had to go into the workhouse, but was now j living on the charity of his nephew. Plaintiff having given evidence, Mrs Caroline Waters, defendant, was called, and' said that tho monoy in question was given ro ltfiiij ns an absolute gift for hen kindness to plaintiff during his illness following upon tho accident. Her husband never asked her for the return of the money, but left the house on March 9 and never returned. Sh« ■was always ready to provide a horn© for 1 h<?B husband. In cross-examination, defendant denied that her grown-up son had ill-treated plaintiff ; in facti he was kindness itself* to him. In any quarrel it was only natural that her son should take her part. She did not know that her husband went into tho workhouse until the guardians informed her of it. . 4 In re-<?xamination, defendant said the home was there for plaintiff to walk into. Mrs Eliza Davis gave evidence to the effect that when plaintiff gave the money to his wife lie said, ''Here, Carry, is the mo-ev, and I wish it was more." Mr Mallinson, for defendant, submitted that -the action failed, as the husband had no right of against his wife in the High Court. As to it being an absolute gift there was evidence of that, and the only question waa what should be allowed for maintenance. Mr Macoim having replied, (Mr Justice Lawrence said' that, since the passing of the Marr-ied Woman's Property Act. he could not see that the wife had*' any duties at all, and transactions between husband and wife must be looked upon as matters of business. Looking at it as a matter of business, and considering the fact that up to lh« accident the husband had contributed' SOs a week, he came to the. conclusion that it was ■not a £ift, that •plaintiff could sue, and that he was entitled to the return of fhe £155. Jucfgattent Was therefore given fd? the amount claimed with coats.