RICH WIFE’S PURSE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 654, 4 May 1929, Page 5

RICH WIFE’S PURSE

HUSBAND’S CLAIM TO LEGACY DISMISSED

CAN WORK FOR LIVING (From Our Oicn Correspondent) HAMILTON, Friday. That a man with any pride in his manhood would scorn to advance any moral claims to h*is rich wife's purse was the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Blair in a judgment given to-day. rpHE case was one in which Alfred -*■ Jones, billiards saloon proprietor, Hamilton- applied to be made a beneficiary under his late wife’s will. The , ase was heard in the Hamilton Supreme Court on March 13, Mr. E. H. North croft appearing: for the applicant and Messrs. A. H. Johnstone and F. j. Strang on behalf of the trustees and beneficiaries under the will, seven brothers and sisters of the testatrix. His Honour dismissed the application, holding that no right to an order had been established. His Honour said'- ‘lt is certainly not common for a man to marry a rich woman, in New Zealand, and expect her to keep him in idleness. Such cases have occurred, but they are rare, and a man content to accept this unenviable position loses caste among his fellows. Although before the Married Women’s Property Acts a husband became entitled to the whole of his wife's estate when he honoured her bv taking her in marriage, this doctrine has received such severe handling both by legislation and trend of modern ideas that it is doubtful if marriage by a poor man to a rich woman now gives him any moral claims on her purse. A man with any pride in manhood would scorn to advance such a claim.” RACING AND BOWLS The Judge said the applicant married Catherine Mildred Cummings in October, 1920, she then being a spinor, aged 43. Applicant was a Widower with seven children. His wife, when he married her, was a voman of considerable means. The wholo burden of supporting him and bringing up the younger members of his family plaintiff left to his wife, and this is suggested as explaining the diminution in the value of her pstate. He apparently spent the bulk of his time in following horseracing or in playing bowls. Plaintiff procured from bis wife advances of very large sums of money which were put into property in his name. The position was becoming so unsatisfactory that testatrix’s brothers or sisters, several of whom had materially helped her to amass her small fortune, deemed it proper to intervene, and pressure was brought to bear upon plaintiff. which ultimately resulted in the placing of his wifes advances on a proper footing. Mrs. Jones divided her estate equally between her four brothers and threo sisters and this meant that each of thenj should benefit to the extent of approximately £I,OOO. Except in the case of one brother, it might be said that the rest of the family were financially no better off than the plaintiff. The Judge continued that it appeared to him plaintiff was driven to maintain that his wife was indulgent tn him in his lifetime, and that having so indulged him it was her duty to do. so after her death. This was no doubt relevant to the question of the existence of moral duty. This element was absent, and there was no evidence that the wife encouraged heihusband in idleness.

CAN WORK IF HE LIKES "The husband is ablebodiecl, and if he likes can work, and has years of work before him,” concluded his Honour. "As the result of assistance trom the wife he has some means, and he should be able materially to increase his income if he will trouble to do so. I do not see that he has any moral claim on his wife, who has discharged family burdens that he himself should have discharged. The application is dismissed, with £lO 10s costs and disbursements.”