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

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

IMPORTANT LEGAL POINT. EFFECT OF NEW ACT. Per Press Association. INVERCARGILL. Aug. 20. A question of importance was argued in tlie Supreme Court this morning before Mr Justice Kennedy .in the first case of its kind to come before the Supreme Court in New Zealand since the passing of the Law Reform Act, 1C36. The case arose from a collision between two motor-cars. Alice Maud Walsh was a , passenger in one car driven by her husband and Cyril Neville Fairweather was the driver of the other car, against whom an action for damages by Mrs Walsh is pending. Legal argument was heard by His Honour as to whether a third party could be joined as a contributing party in the event of Mrs Walsh obtaining clamages against defendant. Mr M. M. Macdonald, counsel for defendant Fairweather, said a wife who was a passenger in a car driven by her husband was claiming damages from his client. Defendant sought to join the husband as contributing to the accident so that should plaintiff (Mrs Walsh) obtain damages against defendant the latter could claim contribution toward those damages from the husband. Counsel Submitted that a woman’s right to compensation for injuries constituted property. He quoted a recent English decision as authority for the proposition that a married woman’s expectancy of life was property. He submitted that the trend of the law now was to regard a man and wife as separate entities and some consideration had been given to that view in modern legislation. Mr J. C. Prain. who appeared for Mrs Walsh, submitted that, under the Married Women’s Property Act, 1908, as amended by the Law Reform Act, 1936, a wife could not sue her husband for damage sustained in a collision (in this instance), and consequently, under the Law Reform Act, there was no right of contribution between defendant and her husband as third party.

Commenting that the question was a most important one, His PTonnur said lie would take time to consider his judgment.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS19370821.2.149

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 224, 21 August 1937, Page 11

Word Count
337

SEQUEL TO COLLISION Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 224, 21 August 1937, Page 11

SEQUEL TO COLLISION Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 224, 21 August 1937, Page 11

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