Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WIFE’S CLAIM

£IO,OOO FROM HUSBAND

t Py lcJegrapti—Per-Press Aaouciarion.i

WELLINGTON, October 22,

An al.egcd pre-marriage contract, by her husband, to settle on her all the income from his investments, was relied upon by Hinemoa Corelli Charlotte Richards, in an action for specific perforinan.ee, or for £IO,OOO damages, against David Rich,aids, retired University Professor, of Otago, in the Supreme Court to-dav, before Mr Justice Ostler. ..... -. Letters of the proposal of marriage and the acceptance were read in the Court, in which Richards wrote: “If you wiil only say the word, all the income from my investments. shallv-;be. : made over to you, to do as' you .like: with. I want you to know that, at any rate.”

Plaintiff claimed that this letter constituted an offer to- her, that, in consideration of her consenting to marry him, the defendant, would make over, or settle, the whole of the income from his investments, which consisted of mortgages of land, shares and debentures to the value of about £20,000; rtnd that in pursuance of that contract, the plaintiff gave up her practice as a solicitor and was married to the defendant on February 19, 1929. The defence is founded on a number of grounds including the following: That no contract exists in writing; also that the plaintiff, four months after the marriage, withdrew from cohabitation, and lived apart from him, thus breaking the condition of the contract, that the relationship of husband and wife should exist in fact, as well as in name.

Counsel for the plaintiff mentioned during the hearing, that the plaintiff had married the defendant and borne him a. child, and lie contended that rhov were entitled to insist that defendant should carry out his share of the e/ntraet.' Tn the cross-examination, plaintiff was asked :—“Y'-u say: ‘Tt is you, and von. home, my love, I want’ What does tint menu?” The plaintiff) replied that that meant his love, and also what he possessed .

Tn answer to another question the pl-vintiff said:—“T told him. wnen he pronosed to me and stressed his ttnnneial nmdtinn, tint money did not always bring happiness.”

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19301023.2.17

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 23 October 1930, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
349

WIFE’S CLAIM Hokitika Guardian, 23 October 1930, Page 3

WIFE’S CLAIM Hokitika Guardian, 23 October 1930, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert