HUSBAND’S VALUE

Hokitika Guardian, 21 November 1929, Page 2

HUSBAND’S VALUE

INTERESTING LEGAL POINT

A WIFE’S STATUS

SYDNEY; Nov. 7

In two States—New South Wales and Victoria—the Courts have been asked to decide the value of a husband, the petitioner in each case being a woman who has had occasion to divorce her husband. The women are claiming £'sooo from other women based on the lo:s of their husbands’ society and partial support; The Full Court in Victoria lias decided that there was no cause of action revealed in the claim, as the proper remedy was for the woman to sue her divorced husband for maintenance. The Full Court, of-New South Wales, has not yet given a decision on the point, but, as the Victorian case is being taken to. the Federal High Court, that Court’s decisr ion will probably be the guiding factor.

Whether the wife in modern times is the servant of her husband was argued at great length in the Victorian case. The parties are Mrs Violet May Wright, who is claiming £SOOO for the alleged enticement away of her husband, and Miss Ellen Cedzich. Miss Cedzich denied that she had enticed the other woman’s husband away from his home. Counsel who appeared for Miss Cedzich, said that the fact that the husband* had the right to his wife’s services gave him his right of action when he made a claim against a co-respondent for the loss of his wife, while the fact that the wife had no claim to the husband’s services deprived her of the right of action for loss of consortium.

Sir Isaac Isaacs (Chief Justice): Does the action lie to the husband liecause the wife is liis servant.

Counsel: No', not entirely. Dealing with a contention that because both husband and wife could hold property they were on an equal footing as regards consortium, counsel contended that the Married Woman’s Property Acts were not intended to increase the rights of women other than the capacity to hold property and prosecute actions. Loss by a wife of the society and comfort of tier husband were not damage that the law recognised.

Sir Frank Gavin Duffy: Are the rights acquired by the wife in marriage the same as acquired by the’husband ? Counsel: My contention is that consortium as far as the wife is concerned is made up of a number of elements, one of which is service.

Sir Frank Gavin Duffy: A father can bring an action in respect of his child. Can a child bring an action in respect of his father? Apparently the law still thinks that a father has control over his child and a husband con-

trol over his Wife. • - ' The' Chief Justice: And is entitled to her services. Cl i 1 Counsel for Mrs Wright : Then it' is about time the law woke up. Counsel for Miss Cedzich : dation of the action yps the motion of a proprietary right in the wife.- There is no injury '"tw Mrs Wright in this case, because there is no right that is recognised by the law that has been infringed. Nor is there any damage of the kind that the law regards as sufficient, as in the ease of slander to support an action. I rely on the origin of loss actions for loss of consortium, which was placed on the notion of service the loss of which damaged the husband’s business. The Chief Justice quoted an English decision in which Lord Campbell said that the wife was not the servant of the husband. Sir Frank Gavin Duffy: Tf Lord Campbell is right, - Mrs Wright can bring her action. ‘ You must not forget that the tendency of modern judges is to trim and barber the common law to make it look presentable. ' The High Court has reserved its decision, and the judgment is being awaited with ’ considerable interest in all State®, for it is felt that if Mrs Wright is successful many other actions will lie taken against women who have figured in divorce proceedings.