WIFE WINS STEAD CASE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 930, 25 March 1930, Page 1

WIFE WINS STEAD CASE

“Monstrous' Says Judge DESTITUTE RACING MAN Question of Maintenance IT seems to me monstrous that a husband living as respondent is, in adultery with another woman, carrying on a business with her, under an agreement to marry her as soon as he obtains a divorce from his wife, should have the right by law to force his wife to maintain him.” This comment was made by Mr. Justice Ostler, in a reserved judgment in the Supreme Court today, in upholding the appeal on this point of Mrs. Annie Louisa Stead against the decision of the magistrate in making an order against her for the payment of £5 weekly maintenance to her husband. Gerald Lovatt Stead, on the ground of his destitution.

His Honour pointed out that under the terms of separation of Stead and his wife, a third of his share of £270 income, from the £IO,OOO marriage settlement on Mrs. Stead, which he had made over for the education and maintenance of' the children, would automatically revert to him within IS months when one member of the family attained 21 years. The balance of the income would come back to him as other two children reached their majority. Mrs. Stead's appeal was based on the ground that her husband living in adultery was reasonable cause for her failing to maintain him, in accordance with the terms of sub-section 5 of section 23 of the Destitute Persons Act. Reviewing the evidence, his Honour said the whole of Stead’s patrimony, representing a fourth of his father’s estate of £166,000, together with £43,000 he made at racing during eight years, had disappeared. The only sum left was the £IO,OOO Stead settled on his wife on his marriage in 1909, from which Mrs. Stead received £3OO yearly of the income and Stead £270 a year. On separating from his wife in 1926, Stead had signed over his £270 a year to Mrs. Stead solely for the education and maintenance of the three children until each attained 21 years, or married prior to that time, when a third of the income should revert to him. His Honour referred to the association of Stead with the woman at Takapuna, with whom he had shared a tent and bach for the past two and a-half .years, and. whom he intended marrying *bn obtaining his divorce. She conducted the Hoo Hoo Tea Rooms with him at Milford. Despite Stead’s strenuous denial of living with this woman as man and wife, his Honour declined to believe

| him. adding, “his denial imposes oo I large a draft on my credulity.” | The judge declared he was far from I satisfied that, at the time the magis i irate declined to cancel the order, j Stead was far from being destitute. : and ha would certainly have decided j in this direction had it been required, i “Moreover, respondent is only 47 i years of age, and I can see no apparent reason why he should not do some manual labour,” added bis Honour. “He says he has neuritis in his feet, but his condition did not seem to prevent him walking, and, hard as the economic conditions are at present* in New Zealand, and especially in Auckland, I cannot believe that if he really ! wanted to he could not obtain some j manual work/* His Honour confessed he could not understand why the magistrate made an order against the wife for no less than £5 weekly. Apparently it was thought, that as the £IO,OOO marriage settlement belonged to Stead, it was equitable he should be allowed some income from it. But, said his Honour, b} r the marriage settlement and the deed of separation. Stead had irrevocably made over £3OO of the income to his wife and by his own free will «£270 for the children until they were 21. The effect of the magistrate’s order was to return him practically the whole of the money he had voluntarily made ove“. “I can see no equity, even assuming he is destitute, in taking the whole of that income from the children at a time when it may be vital to their inin order to help him maintain liimself and the woman lie is living with',” added his Honour. Costs were allowed to the appellant. Mr. Johnstone appeared for the appellant and Mr. Mowbray for the respondent.