A WIFE IS NOT THE MASTER

Hokitika Guardian, 8 February 1930, Page 6

A WIFE IS NOT THE MASTER

JUDGE’S DICTUM,

LONDON, Dec. 15

The question of a husband's right to choose, the place where the home should be was raised at Bow County Court yesterday, when Airs Dorothy Ellen Ball, of London road, Plaistow, E., sued lier husband, Albert Samuel Ball, of Hillview Gardens, Colindale, Hendon, N.W. She sought to recover £l3 ss, the value of goods, which she alleged belonged to her and had been taken away from the home. Mrs Ball said that her husband worked at Colindale, which was 17 miles away from where she lived, and he had been in lodgings. He spent his evenings with his mother and the week-ends with her.

One clay he came home and said lie had found a house - for them. This greatly upset her, and then she ieceived a letter addressed just, Dolly. Going to remove goods to the above address. Will tell the gas man.” He did remove the goods, and she. immediately claimed the return of those which belonged to her. She had told him that she would not go right up there. EMANCIPATION, DAYS.

Judge Bairstow: There was no separation and the husband took these goods to a place near his work. Even in these days of female emancipation, a wife has no right to refuse a home when her husband offers it to her. She has no right to split up a homo to go to a separate establishment. Mr Dutliie (for Mrs Ball): The wife is entitled to her furniture.

Judge Bairstow: I entirely disagree with you. Air Dutliie.: Then you are holding that lie is entitled to take them away. Judge Bairstow: I am holding that he has not taken them away. He lias moved them to where he has provided a home, and 1 am prepared to rule that he is entitled to detain them for their joint home. He has never claimed them as his own piopertv. and he has a right to move where his work is. Mr Dutliie: You are making the husband tho absolute master? DISGRACEFUL ACTION.

Judge Bairstow: .1 am not, but I am making sure the wife is not the absolute master. This is a disgraceful action which should never have been brought, and arises out of the •refusal of the wife to live with hei husband, as she wants 1° Uve with her mother. There "’ill he judgment for the husband.

Leave to appeal was granted. Airs Ball’s parents, Arthur Charles Cook and his wife, next claimed £1 11s 6d, the value of goods the husband took away. It was stated that ,sonie of the goods had been returned, but those still detained were . worth Bs. " Judge Bairstow (to Airs ( o ;k): Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

Airs Cook: No, I am not. Judge Bairstow: I should be, I know that. You can have your judgment for 8s and costs.