Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2764, 19 March 1910, Page 3

. Mr. Rees quoted authorities to a considerable extent to show that, having obtained an order from the Court, by consent of herself, of 13s per week, she was entirely bound by this amount, and not again claim from her husband, unless by order of the Court under till© Divorce Act. His Honor said that if a husband compelled his wife to live apart, lip could not force her to take any sum and say it was adequate, but if oho agreed to take it, she could no longer be his agent. But in the present caso the question was whether the amount of the order, which was sufficient for the wife’s sustenance, also precluded her from claiming for medical expenses. Mr Bur nerd said that in the first place the order was made under an Act which was merely to- supply the bare necessities of life. Two elements entered into it, one the wife’s needs, and the other the husband’s means, bnt the Magistrate was debarred from awarding more- than £1 per week." By consenting to that order, the wife .was- not to be taken to have agreed to take, what she thought the husband could give. She thought that this was all the Court would allow under the Circumstances. His Honor pointed ont that in this case the parties had themselves agreed on the amount, and had not asked the Magistrate to fix it. The inference, Ilis Honor drew, was that the parties agreed £1 was sufficient for the. maintenance of the mother and- child, but it was never contemplated that this was to meet extraordinary expenditure. Thirteen shillings a week was not sufficient to pay for food, let alone rates, etc., unless the mother had other means. It certainly left no margin for mecFr 1 expenses. . Continuing, Mr. Burnard said that by law the husband was responsible to keen his wife up to his station, which was" based on his station. It was upon the plaintiffs to show that the allowance had been sufficient, but they had not done this. They had said that- if the amount was not sufficient she should have applied under another Act. There was tlio further fact that co-habitation afterwards would have the effect of breaking the order. His Honor pointed out this was not so, unless thev agreed to live together again as husband and wife. Mr Burnard put it that the order of the Court was not binding. There was no covenant binding them not to ask for an increase. Mr. Rees contended that the only course the wife had was to have the order increased under one Act or the other. The Magistrate had fixed the sum, as a reasonable one, and her right was gone to pledge her husband’s crcd. it, and anyone who supplied the wile with goods would have to look to her. She could have applied for more under the Divorce Act. but this was not done, and she was bound by the original order The claims against the husband amounted to about £IOO. not for medi . cal expenses only, hut for furniture. Mr. Barnard said that this had been paid off. Mr. Rees, continuing, said that if the furniture had been paid off, she had used money which should have gone for medical expenses. Judgment was reserved. IN CHAMBERS. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS. His Honor sat in Chambers yesterday morning, when an application was made on behalf of the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy requiring the public examination of Patrick John Hofen, carter, bankrupt. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared in support. An order was made, upon a deposit of £2, to cover expenses, that the bankrupt should be brought up at 10.30 this morning. In the estate of Charles Surtees Fyke, deceased, an order for probate was made on the motion of Mr. F. W. Nolan, to Joseph Russell, of Matawhero, the executor, according to the tenor of the will and codicil. On motion of Mr. E. H. Mann, His Honor granted letters of administration in the estate of Emma Jessie Faram, deceased. His Honor will sit in Chambers at 9.30 a.in. to-day.