SECOND MARRIAGE

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21198, 22 August 1940, Page 11

SECOND MARRIAGE

WIDOW AND ESTATE

QUESTION' FOR JUDGE ALLEGED CASE OF BIGAMY (Fy TRlPfrrapTi.—Prpss Association) CHRISTCHURCH, Wednesday Whether a Avidow by contracting a marriage Avhich turned out to be bigamous had thereby lost her rights to the income from her first husband’s estate, which was to be paid her so long as she remained a widow, j Avas a question to be determined in a case heard in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was Catherine Smith, otherwise Hitches, and the defendant John William BoAvden, as trustee of the estate. For the plaintiff, Mr R. TAvyneham said the action was of a friendly nature brought by plaintiff to establish her right to the income of her husband’s estate. She was the widow of James Smith. Avho died in 1930 at Rangiora. The action Avas taken ; under the Families Protection Act j and an order of the Court Avas made j giving her the net income of the whole estate during her widowhood. The point at issue was whether she Avas noAV 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. Marriage Not Annulled It was alleged that this marriage was bigamous, as Hitches had a wife living at the time of the marriage with petitioner, and this real Avife 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. Plaintiff had formerly instituted proceedings for the 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 TAvyneham contended that once it was proved the marriage was bigamous the plaintiff became I entitled to the income. If the marriage was bigamous, then it Avas never a marriage at all. With the consent of counsel for the defence, His Honour agreed to alloAV the pleadings to be amended so that the case became a suit for money, and not for a declaration of status. For the defendant, it was argued by Mr J. H. Upham that no action was possible until the marriage at Suva had been annulled. Decision was reserved.