MARRIED WOMAN'S PROPERTY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 150, 25 June 1881, Page 1

MARRIED WOMAN'S PROPERTY

An interesting discmsion took place in tbe Legislative Council on the motion for the second reading of Mr Waterhoaee'e " Married Womeo?a Property Protection BilL" Mr Buckley ajked that it should be deferred, the measure being an important one largely ailected tbe law of the cplony» Mr Waterhoute remarked that.in 1875 the laoperial Parliament parsed a Bill of a sweepibg character, providing that a married woroaii'a whole ear Di ops, in any form, property acquired by or bequeathed to her, and income arising Ircm it, Bbould be wholly at her own disposal, and ehe could insure and bring actions in her own name. A woman emigrating from England to New Zea1/ n i lost all these privileges. Even the (Xtstiug law was nojt found suflScient in England, and his present Bill was based : on ona introduced tbia session at Home, which had been f&vored by the Government and revised by a select committee. The principle, was recognised in Canada, tbe United b'tates, and several other countries. Maori women married tinder native custom held their own property, When the land passed through tbe Court attd thereby became Hubject to English law, many of the WJmea refused to marry, preferring 0 ncubinage to letting their lands go t> their husbands. On what principle of equity should tbe property of women be confiscated the moment ike marriage Btrvice was concluded P The number of wife deserters here was very large, and he had it on the authority of Mr Johnson, the able Relieving Officer in Wellington, that deserted wivea now lost energy and beoeme too disheartened to make exertions to maintain themselves, knowiDg everything might be taken by their busbande. These would be protected by the propoßed Act, and he wan quite sure the Legislature, by passing it, would earn the gratitude ot tboueanda of women, (Cheers.) 1 Mir Schtland feared the Bill went too far, and if paaaed they tiiigbt have to legislate to protect the property of married men. (Hear, bear.) The proposed law was certainly in tore© id California, where, however, it was necessary, as couples there avowedly married to keep together so long as it suited them, and therefore without auch a law a wife might be left on her beam ends, as it were. The same law here would tend to the same laxity. If a womtn was allowed to bring an action, at law she might be imprisoned for contempt of Coufct, and how would hus~ lands like that? Was public opinion, tipe for such a change ? In California 1 a judge would not dara to commit a woman for contempt or he. would certainly be cowhided by her or her female friends ; but the case was different here. . A woman with separate property, allowed to briug actious, ' might bring a frivolous one against! her own husband, and, if she had the ionger purse, might crush; the poor-man altogether. (Hear, hear*) Women should not hare th 6 -jtowjer-'to trade separately, 'for 'ijpej 'were 'nQt'-'kpl good at business as ' men, though they j certairily- tnouglit they could make what they called "good bargains." He" had. 1 seen some ladies who wero sure if they were : oply ' iaen jtbey coiild go on the < Stock iixebahge and make foxtunefs very quickly^. Why, the bulk of bubble companies' victims were women and ' country oletgymeh. (Laughter.) The I Attorney-General, admitted the present j law was very unsatisfactory) but added ! that whether they should go sd far in : the way of amending it as proposed by Mr. Waterho.use, must be well considered. Women's property was not confiscated by marriage, as it was gene- | rally secured by settlements, but the uncontrolled use of subsequently-ac-quired property by husbands was most unreasonable: He suggested that the bill should be read a second time, ,and then referred to a committee to report upon it to the Council. This course was agreed to, and the Council ,adj oui-ned.at 3.55 .p.m.*,.. . . ...