A PECULIAR CASE.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 57, 22 October 1887, Page 2

A PECULIAR CASE.

A case of a peculiar nature came before the R.M. Court on Tuesday. A married woman had been keeping a board ng-house, in which her husband lived, but otherwise did not control. The ostensible proprietress had got such a good name for honesty that unlimited credit was allowed her, which under other circumstances would perhaps not have been the case. But through disagreements which it would only cause unnecessary pain to refer to a split in the family circle took place, and the house and land being the property of the husband, the woman left her own possessions, on the under" standing, it was stated in evidence that all debts should be liquidated by the husband.

The bearings of the case are altogether strange as presented in Cotirt, and require to be touched on very delicately to avoid hurting the feelipgs of some of those who may be involved, but there are several points which we can hardly refrain from commenting upon.

The husband appears after the separation to have repudiated his wife's debts, no doubt findihg the incUbus more than he cared to bear. The creditors; oh the other hand, are naturally anxious as to the security of their money, and one immediately takes summary proceedings to recover the amount owing, from the husband, and by the decision of the Magistrate the claim has been upheld. So far no opinion need be expressed, but take the surroundings of the case and the facts as brought out in evidence. Here we have a man of fine physique and healthy appearance admitting that, while his wife was working hard to maintain a business of her own, he in return for his board and lodging, rent, and odd jobs about the house, allowed her to pay all the current and incidental expenses without in any way giving that assistance which would be expected of so close a relation —indeed he admitted having put clothes on himself without knowing where they had come from or who paid for them. It was also admitted that he had said things within the hearing of boarders which would be likely to cause them to leave and thus deprive the proprietress of the only means by which she could be expected to pay her debts. The wife testifies that she has struggled to fulfil all just claims, and has put up with much that has been distasteful to her in the hope of succeeding in this resolve, but things went against her and she was thus placed in the humiliating position in which she stood. Certainly we should not think the wisest course was taken in handing over the property when the climax was reached. It would have been better had the wife either have made a fresh start on other premises, or else have at once made the best arrangements possible to settle the just demands of the creditors, but there may have been circumstances to prevent this which are not shown on the face of things. This case is perhaps one of the best arguments that could be wished for in favor of the much abused Married Women’s Property Act.