A Peculiar Case.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 143, 13 December 1894, Page 2

A Peculiar Case.

(Per Press Association.) Chkistchurch, Dee. 12 At tbo Supreme Court to-day Judge Denniston gave judgment in the case of EUmers and Ellmers, an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate's Court. In this case the wife had taken proceedings against her husband for maintenance. The husband had denied liability on the ground that in 1886 the parties had entered into a deed of separation, whereby in consideration of L3OO the wife agreed that the husband might live apart from her, as if be were a single man, that she would not attempt to compel him to allow her any alimony or maintenance, aud that any future inconstancy on his part should be no ground for complaint or for any proceedings by her against him. It had been provided that during the present year a suit for judicial separation and petition for alimony brought by her against defendant by reason of his adultery subsequently to tho deed of separation had been dismissed, on tbe ground that by the terms of tho deed she had connived at such adultery. Mr Beetham, S.M., had determined that tlio deed of separation afforded no ground of answer or defence to the wife's complaint, and had made au order for payment by Ellmers of 15s per week towards her maintenance. His Honor thought that a married woman might contract herself out of her common law right. The obligations created by the Destitute Persons Act were of a totally different character. The object of the statute was to prevout a wife from being a burden on the State while sho bad a husband able to maintain her, aud no contract botweeu the parties could relievo the busbaud of that duty. He upheld the Magistrate's decision, dismissing tbe appeal with costs.