ILL-TREATED WIVES

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 4000, 21 September 1929, Page 2

ILL-TREATED WIVES

THE LEGAL. POSITION. A questioh was recently raised in the House of Representatives by Mr. J. M'Cornbs (.Lyttelton), regarding the legal position of a wife who was ill-treated by her husband. On Wednesday, the Minister of Justice (the Hon. T. M. Wilford) read the following opinion on the subject forwarded to hinr by the So-licitor-General (Mir. A. Pair, K.C.) :

“I have to advise that the law is not as assumed in the question addressed to the Hon. the Minister of Justice. If a man beats his wife he can be charged with assault as in other eases, and, if convicted, punished accordingly. If lie fails to supply her with adequate means of maintenance she may apply to a Magistrate under the Destitute Persons’ Act fd|r an order that he pay her a reasonable sum for her maintenance. If he*is guilty of persistent cruelty to her, she can he granted a summary separation, maintenance, and the custody of any children. “The law appears, therefore, to give a wife ample means for obtaining redress for any ill-treat-ment bv her husband.

“In the case which probably caused the question to be asked, proemdings were taken by the .police under Section 10(1 (2) of the Crimes Act,. 1908. This section is designed for the protection of persons, who, by reason of mental or physical defects, or ill-health, are dependent on others, and unable to withdraw themselves from such care’, or to provide for themselves. It appeared when proceedings were instituted that Mrs Elmsley was- in this position. In the Supreme Court, however, her evidence itself showed that she had relatives to whom she might have gone, that she had both the opportunity and the means to do so if she "had wished; and that neither her mental nor physical condition prevented her doing so. It appeared that-'-she preferred to semain with her children and submit to harsh treatment rather than live apart, with a <risk of separation from them. The question of proceedings for assault was considered in that case; but owing to the lapse of time —some seven or eight years —since the last assault that could be proved, and the indefinite nature.of the evidence, it was con-sidered-such .a charge could not lie sustained.”